Tweeker

It doesn't create any parts, the parts folder isn't there, reloading the game won't show the parts because they where not created.

I just installed this, and I'm having 0 luck getting it to work. The button is there in the VAB, but it does nothing.

Thanks a lot, I think this will solve my modeling problems in the short term, Is there a way to take the root part off the top? I couldn't get the parts to go together without building them on another part, I used a stayputnik.

I've done 5 flybys of Eve now, and still no science for returning a vessel from there, always "0 science for a vessel returned from orbit of the sun" Maybe this situation isn't implemented yet? I'm going to try an orbit tonight and see if I can get Science for that.

I put together a work-able version of this by editing the .cfg files, However I'm no having much luck figuring out how to edit the meshes and textures of the engine to make it distinct from the stock version

Is there a way to add 2 meshs together in a .cfg file, or to turn a sub assembly into a part?

I used "florine", my version of a fluorine analogue. So nasty stuff..... I'm having the engine will heat quickly, and I am toying with the idea of adding "nozzle" to the engine as a resource, that will represent the life limit of the engine.

I am adding a couple of Tri-propellant Engines, so the new resource is a third propellant in it's own tank that can be mixed in with stacks of existing propellants.

I've been thinking about doing a mod for some time now, and this weekend I sat down and hacked up some .cfg files and a new resource. Basically I'm doing (yet another) engine parts pack. I've got it working fairly well, and I think balanced too. But it seems that new models and textures will be the real hang-up. If anyone is interested in lending a hand I wouldn't turn them away..... What I really need is a re-paint of 2 fuel tanks, and at least a re-paint of 3 engines or some guidance in getting the files into GIMP and back out. Or, if someone can point me to a guide on how to combine 2 or more stock meshes and textures in the .cfg. I have had some luck in making some more distinctive engines in-game by putting multiple parts together. If I could find a way to do this in the .cfg it would probably serve for the short term. Thanks in advance for any help you might provide.

I was doing yet another playthru this week and I noticed something odd. When you recover a vessel you only get science from one type of situation under the heading "a vessel returned from..." I think you should get it from each situation the vessel has been in on it's trip. In the particular situation I experienced I was doing a flyby of Eve, I recovered the vessel, and the on science listed was ~ 3 science for "a vessel returned from orbit of the sun". I had previously sent 1 flight just out of kerbins SOI and back. So I sent another trip, and I got 0.1 science for "a vessel returned from orbit of the sun". I haven't done a 3rd eve flyby yet, I am hoping now that I collected all the "orbit of the sun" science I can return science from a flyby, or orbit of other planets and moons.

QUOTE] I like that the specs of parts don't change. Makes sharing craft files and troubleshooting the craft of others much, much simpler.

That change would work equally well to give the poodle a nice of it's own. I'm not pushing for any one specific change. just saying that the poodle definitely needs something.

That's very true, but for an optimal rocket your trying to give the upper stage a certain TWR, you've thrown both number out as the target for this rocket, it can't be both 1.0 and 1.3 which is the target number? If that is what you wanted to build you should have said so 4 or 5 days ago, rather than wasting all this time talking about other designs. If you do some digging you'll find out that not only the space shuttle, but also Falcon X crossfeed fuel between stages, so It's kind of hard to say that it is unrealistic, or not feasible.

The design in this case is specified by Jouni to be the "optimum" for a poodle. Which is why the rocket had a poodle in it in the 1st place. If it was me I wouldn't use the Poodle at all. It has far too little thrust for anything except circularizing an upper stage that has already been set into orbit, or orbital transfer. In the orbital transfer field it has too much weight. It's low thrust in relation to the Mainsail, ~1/8, spreads the 2.5M engines out over too wide of a range. I don't see anyone clamoring for a similarly sized engine in the 1.25m range, 25 thrust.

They are contradictory in this case either you are suggesting the poodle needs a TWR of 1.0 or 1.3 in a 10 T rocket, it can't be both. The lower stage is bad because that's what it takes to lift a 2 stage 10T rocket, If you wanted a different configuration you could have have said so, at any point. Instead of wasting days talking about 2 stage designs. It really seems like your moving the goal posts here. Now your just playing semantics games. The space shuttle's fuel tank is external to the engine, the fuel has to get to the main engine somehow, that's got to be a fuel duct. While I can agree that the fuel duct shouldn't be massless I can't agree with your logic condemning external fuel tanks. And the earlier rocket with 1.25M engines is even lighter, and simpler, as it is a 1 stage + booster design instead of 2+ booster. That's a lot of extra complication to justify having a poodle on the top.

Which is it, make up your mind. The lower stage is defined by the need to carry a poodle to orbit. Without the poodle's terrible performance the skipper can carry more fuel, and perform to it's potential. The Space shuttle uses a drop tank and fuel lines, so doesn't seem that unrealistic. Once again there is no asparagusing, or malice in the design. The only reason theses rocket have been bad is your insistence that a poodle be in them. The poodle needs the skipper to make it in to orbit, not the other way around. Remove the skipper and you have to put a heavier engine like the mainsail, or 1.25m engines with a worse TWR. Because of the squat nature of an "optimal poodle stage you end up with a very unrealistic rocket shape., and a heavier rocket. Or you could try a "double poodle" which is what is needed in this case. Because a "double poodle" has more thrust the rocket has a better TWR and you can carry more fuel it is more realistic to use with boosters, and it can make orbit. This once again proves the poodle need an adjustment.

For an upper stage to have a TWR below 1 it needs to burn much higher, out of the atmosphere. Otherwise it sacrifices some of the velocity the lower stage has gifted it, as the poodle does in this case, it wastes delta v built by the first stage, and it wastes it's own delta v recovering lost velocity. So it's the mainsails fault the poodle under performs in a 10 ton rocket? I find that hard to believe, The mainsail is the shining star in this scenario, dragging the poodle into orbit kicking an screaming. If we look at the "optimal" 7 ton payload for the poodle, with a skipper 1st stage, the poodle performs adequately, for once. But if you remove the poodle entirely, and feed the fuel from external tanks the skipper gets into the same orbit, with extra Delta/v. The poodle is superfluous, it can be removed from the rocket entirely, and the rocket gets better the poodle is holding the skipper back. That sums up the poodle perfectly.

The extra ton is a red herring as the poodle can't lift the extra ton. Removing the Skipper for a Poodle results in a rocket that is 1 ton lighter, but the Poodle can't use this extra ton. If you replace it with fuel the Poodle's TWR drops below 1 even by the time the second stage lights. So it will slow down, and fail to make orbit. Adding the extra ton of fuel to the 1st stage has a negligible, only 30 M/S or .75% increase. The Poodle wastes far more than this with it's poor ascent profile. In fact it wastes all it extra Delta/v it has, because it has to burn a lot longer than the Skipper, it accelerates slower, so it spends more time in the atmosphere, and the velocity vector comes down more so it spends even more time in the atmosphere. Even beyond the atmosphere it has to burn longer to deliver the delta/V. So it is farther from apoapsis for the beginning and end of the burn, meaning the thrust is less effective at raising periapsis above the atmosphere. Beyond the numbers the skipper stage is easier to fly, so you can more reliably make orbit. It is also more tunable for payload both larger and smaller. And that is just considering the Skipper with the same fuel balance between the stages, If you re-balance the fuel so the mainsail burns out sooner, and the skipper burns longer you gain more delta/v. Of course there is some trade off, but the skipper remains superior. As you said, as long you have enough thrust, choose the smallest engine. But the poodle doesn't have enough thrust.

If you care about weight, and performance there a lot of better choices of a 2.5m lander; The LV-909, Aerospike, Rapier, LV-T30, LV-T45, and 48-7S all provide better delta v and a lighter rocket. The LV-909 is also more tunable by adding 2,3 or 4 on Bi- Tri- or Quadstack adapters, or radially. Both in terms of thrust and Fuel volume. The same is true for the 48-7S. The lv-1R, and 24-77 can be mounted radially and provide better Delta V in a lighter rocket. Or you can switch to monopropellant and use the O-10 and have an even lighter lander, or fatten it up to 10 tons and have more delta v than with even a 48-7S. or about 30% more than with a poodle. If it's aesthetics you care about, many of these are just as good a Poodle. Either way a Poodle is not a stand-out choice for a 2.5M lander.

The example rocket wasn't designed with any malice, only to try the poodle in a way you suggested, but it does show that the poodle is really only useable with 1, maybe 2 fuel tank configurations. The only reason it works at all is because there is a mainsail below it. The first stage practically sets is into orbit. If you use a skipper & mainsail the rocket flys much easier than with a poodle. Or you can a skipper and some 1.25m boosters, and again it is easier to fly. The poodle is much more useable if you double the thrust and weight, It's burn time is much faster so you can burn closer to apoapsis, and use your Delta V more efficiently. A "double poodle" is also much easier to fly, as the TWR of the rocket is higher. It's stage is taller, so it looks better with 1.25m radial boosters. It is easier to adjust the burn time of the engine, stock it burns the smallest 2.5m tank in 1 minute 10 sec, so this is the basic unit you can tune the thrust in. A "double poodle" burns in half the time, so it is much more tunable. There are a lot of benefits to raising the poodle's thrust, but it causes very few problems.

I'd rather not get side tracked into a discussion of how to build an optimal 10T 1.25M lifter, you can build various ones that replaces the Poodle, In 2.5M 10T lifters the Skipper can replace and out perform the Poodle, as in the example I cited earlier. I agree with this completely, the 48-7S is completely out of wack, it relegates a lot of engines to 2nd tier, the poodle being one of them. But it's not the only one that has this effect on the poodle. There are about 6 engines that you can use instead, depending on the roll. 1) At the low end of the spectrum is the 48-7s which can replace it in landers. 2) The LV-909 can replace it in transfer stages, landers & sometimes lifters. 3) The aerospike can replace it in landers, lifters and transfer stages depending on form. 4) The LV-T30 5) & the LV-T45 can replace it in lifters for 1.25M payloads or 2.5 M if you're not picky about form. 6) The Skipper can replace it in lifers with 2.5M payloads or 1.25M payloads. And that is really the point I'm trying to make here, it is in the middle of the pack in a lot of ways, If you adjust it's thrust, and maybe TWR it can rise out of the pack into a roll of it's own.

Did you actually try this thing? I built it and flew it, How do you think I got the TWR, and D/V figures for the 2nd stage when it lights VS sea level? It is very difficult to fly, I'm not sure how you're flying it, but you have to turn very late, above 20km. The 1.0 TWR isn't far off from the poodle top stage you describe, poodle & X200-16 So it should fly about the same. If you burn the center engine at about 20% thrust the ascent goes easier, or you could add fuel ducts. If that isn't working for you can add LV-30s or 45s instead of aerospikes. This gives you a higher TWR, so you get to about 25 KM on the 1st stage. I just flew this, and it weighs about 1T less, but is easier to fly. My point here is that there are a lot of alternatives to the poodle. Some similarly hard to fly, and some that fly easier. An inline stabilizer adds only .1T, which still leaves the stage lighter than one with a poodle, or you can use an LV-T45 and have vectoring. The 10T payload does not need to be 2.5M a number of long distance missions can be built for 10T with 1.25M parts. So there is no need to worry about having an hourglass rocket or changing from 2.5m to 1.25m. Unless you are getting really crazy with your rocket a 1.25M coupler will serve just fine.

I agree with you on this also, I like to have a little extra Delta/v in the bank. I'm certainly not here to tell you how to have fun. KSP is a game in the end, and is not about optimal. I only mean to say that unless you build a really heavy lander, the Poodle can be swapped for an aerospike, or a LV-909, and you gain more Delta/v, and end up with a lighter lander. It's not wrong to use a poodle, but with very little change to the lander you can lower the weight by about 20%, and maintain the same form. If you want to use the poodle in this roll it works reasonably well. You just end up needing a bigger rocket to put it where ever it's going.

Sitting under a 10T payload this would have a TWR of 1.06, If you change to a LV-T30 it would have a TWR of .99, but with the LV-T30 you can add another 45 fuel, to end up at the same weight, with a little more Delta/v than the poodle, not to mention the cost savings.

In the 30T example the burn time was too long, and you say use less fuel, So I built the 10T rocket with less fuel in the top stage, and you say it has too little fuel. My fix for this is to remove the Poodle, and 3rd stage entirely, riding to orbit on the Skipper. Which is identical to what you describe. : If I build the Lifter you describe, the Poodle does work, but I can lift the same payload with 1.25m engines, and the rocket is lighter and cheaper. You can lift 10t with a 2 stage 1.25m rocket, that weighs about 61T vs the 80T example I cited. As the payload increases beyond 10T The 1.25M 2nd stage dips bellow 1.0 TWR, and the burn time increase beyond 3 minutes per stage. So you need to switch to 2.5 M parts to do your lifting. The poodle has lost effectiveness by this point and the Skipper steps in, as in the 10T rocket example I cited previously. For the Poodle to fill it's roll it needs to lift ~7 tons and it can easily be replaced by 1.25M engines in this role.