NBZ

Very nice color. I think such a small tank doesn't need 1.25m's 5 pieces in the dome. Remember how the bigger tanks have eight wedges. Three possibilities: A. No segmentation, just a plain colored dome. B. Just the center circle. C. Just the four segments, without a center circle.

Can you add an end-cap to the bottom of the adapters, so they will still work if on top of an even smaller stack? Maybe even change the curvature to finish horizontally, for that purpose? - - - Updated - - - I think that looks too busy, and has too little color to be clear in the menu. I would prefer the fairing cones' design here. Also, I never got around to ask you if the four narrow vertical light gray bands (not the thin lines) are intentional or an artifact. - - - Updated - - - I suppose those adapters have cross-feed. However, a thin 3.75m tank would make more sense, structurally speaking...

??? NecroBones deserves all the credit. I am just giving a little feedback.

Several mods add longer 0.625m tanks, but none of them with quality that approaches NecroBonesy quality. I am sold on FTP if you add 0.625m to this and CCC too (red, right?).

I, of course, prefer this, if you can avoid Z-fighting, as it minimizes parts-count, and is more elegant. However, you may want to continue the curvature shallowly until the center, to avoid awkward looks if used on an even smaller diameter. If resorting to clipping anyway, you can even remove the lower node completely. Think about it: If the inward-curving part of the fairing is not filled with payload anyway, it may as well be a "surface attached" ring on the tank below: I like the nose-cones. Could you update F02C to match in curvature and design (orange tip)? Edit: 2 × "don't forget to use a stack separator or decoupling nose cone at the top!"

I think you pretty much nailed it at first attempt. This will be the easiest-to-use fairing system as of yet! Can't wait the the obligatory upcoming "Single-Point Inline fairings Parts Pack"... Typos in 3.75 base: "FB-2.75m Fairing" in title (just call it "SpaceY FB3 Fairing Base"), and "optional 3.75m lower" in description. Consider inserting the word "node" after "lower" in the bases' descriptions. I know it is WIP, so I guess you just scaled 0P's textures to the new nose cones. I suggest leaving the major lower part white (remove the dark ring) and just let the tip colored (like the stock 1.25m nose cone), the 5m one being SpaceY-blue and the 3.75m one being Kerbodyne-orange. I think it will both look good and stock-alike, and make identification in menu easy (it's hard to distinguish all the varied 0P cones), especially when you release 1P with 1.25m and 2.5m cones in their respective colors... I like that the lower adapter-fairing has radial reinforcement bars (another fairing first?). However, I think you can leave the regular ones out. This way it will be as a platform in the middle, with a permanent ring extending from whatever is below flush into the ejectable fairing panels. It is nice to be able to put batteries and other small stuff on the inside of that ring. The ejected fairings look like too much like solar panels. I get the idea that they are SpaceY blue, but 3.75m? I would just make them gray. What does that mean? Making a shallower slant, or having additional nodes for smaller sizes?

3. Yeah, I forgot about that. I have R&S Capsuledyne's 3.75m stock-alike separator. I see two possibilities with only 6 parts each: A. Sharp edges, complicated to use: Various inclines with (realistic) almost sharp edges (slightly overlapping panels): <--- Read "separator" instead of "decoupler"! Parts: 3.75m nose cone with upside-down decoupler. 3.75m cylindrical fairing base with multiple top-nodes (no decoupling). 5m cylindrical fairing base with multiple top-nodes (no decoupling). 3.75m stack separator 5m stack separator. 5m–3.75m adapter. (Called number 9 when upside-down.) Possible stacks: 5m flush: 1-9-5-3 3.75m flush: 1-9-5-3 3.75 expanded: 1-9-5-3-6 5m inline: 5-3 3.75m inline: 4-2 3.75m expanded inline: 5-3-6 Pros: A natural evolution of our discussion. Visually similar to Falcon X. Cons: The (un)staging of the 3.75m decoupling nosecone. Turning the bottom adapter around. Complicated stacks. Visually different from Falcon 9 and Falcon XX. B. Smooth fairings, simple to use: A revolutionary approach is to use your magic fairing abilities. Have two nodes below the 5m base; the top would just be a plain 5m node, but the bottom would extend a rounded adapter (i.e. fairing) inwards to a 3.75m node. (You may just as well include 2.5m extension-ability into the 3.75m base.) This would make it very simple to have smoothly rounded fairings. And really, the only difference from solution A is replacing the adapter with an additional nose cone, and adding the extending bottom nodes to the bases: Parts: 3.75m nose cone with upside-down decoupler. 3.75m cylindrical fairing base with multiple top-nodes one extra bottom node ("2b") for 2.5m adaption (no decoupling). 5m cylindrical fairing base with multiple top-nodes and one extra bottom node ("3b") for 3.75m adaption (no decoupling). 3.75m stack separator. 5m stack separator. 5m nose cone with upside-down decoupler. The stacks would become so much simpler; never more than two parts: 5m flush: 6-3 3.75m flush: 1-2 3.75 expanded: 6-3b 5m inline: 5-3 3.75m inline: 4-2 3.75m expanded inline: 5-3b NEW! 2.5m expanded: 1-2b NEW! 2.5m expanded inline: [TR-XL]-2b Pros: Simple usage. Visually similar to Falcon 9 and XX. Cons: Even more floating nodes to avoid. Visually different from Falcon X. IMHO, solution B is far superior.

Could specify for each size, which .cfg/.mu-pair's design matches the "stock" CCC?

Maybe use MM to increase the cost of all probe cores and command pods with the price of MechJeb (if installed) and KER (if installed) or both (if both are installed)?

Cool, I'll think about what will work best here. Maybe something similar but with 2 or 3-way fairing panels. I would also prefer something like 0PF. I really try to keep the parts-clutter down, and I could see this being no more than 4 parts: 3.75m nosecone that is an upside-down decoupler (to eject the fairing like a decoupler under the LV-N) 3.75m cylindrical-fairing base that has three top nodes for variable length (i.e. can be used inline or with the decoupler-nosecone) 5m cylindrical-fairing base that has three top nodes (i.e. can be used inline or with the rounded adapter and the decoupler-nosecone) 3.75-to-5m rounded adapter (can be used on top of a 3.75m stack connect to the 5m fairing base, and on top of a 5m fairing, to connect to the 3.75m nose cone.

Note that Delta IV model requires ALL of your packs...

As another commenter stated, I also suspect this "release" is purely to boost sales. The poll therefore needs another option: No, and I am willing to pay again for it to stay in beta.

I am trying out going over to FAR (from SDF). I like using SpaceY's wide load capabilities, but we don't have any fairings. Could we various SpaceX-shaped fairings? I made this, but it does seem clumsy:

Prompted by poll: Other: I use the custom menus, and I do use mods, but I don't use part-heavy mods. I agree that setup of the custom menus is tedious. I began making a menu for each radial size, (functionality is coming to stock in the next update) but it was too much work, and I now rely on color coding instead.

Wow! That was a major save-breaker. I already had a base on my way to Duna using 8 Dibami... I guess additional nodes in a previously build ship is rather disastrous.

So you have a supercomputer. Good for you. Joke aside, I'm usually on a Dell Latitude E4310 (i5 520M 2.4GHz, 8GB RAM, Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit on SSD), so if FAR works for you, it should for me too. Current mods are BahaSP, Chatterer, CIT, ColorCodedCans, CrowdSourcedScience-1.2.1, DeadlyReentry, Diazo, EditorExtensions, ForScience, img_viewer, InFlightWaypoints, KerbalIspDifficultyScaler, KerbalJointReinforcement, MechJeb2, ModuleManager, R&SCapsuledyne, SafeChute, SpaceY-Lifters, StageRecovery, StockBugFixModules, StockDragFix, TextureReplacer, ToadicusTools, and TweakableEverything, so nothing too heavy there either. Maybe there was something else going on, but I was noticing significant frame rate drops in atmosphere when using FAR. Other than that, I liked it. Maybe KSP was just having a bout of hiccups. I'll try FAR again next time I start a career. Thank you.

Oh.​​​​​​​

SpaceY foldable grid-fins? I used some backwards placed regular fins on one of my landable SpaceY 1st stages. Worked really well, but looked awkward, especially during launch.

FAR is hard – on the processor. The computers I have available simply are not up to the task of doing the more realistic computations, as opposed to the stock ones, an issue HarversteR briefly mentioned: I currently use Stock Drag Fix, but I would prefer something based on shape, not (empty) mass.

A little later: Rebooted KSP to load KER, and now everything is right, even after removing KER. I guess KSP just had a hiccup, albeit a really odd one. Sorry for bothering. When the problem still existed, Laythe and Jool were right: [TABLE=width: 128] [TR] [TD=width: 64, align: left]Sun[/TD] [TD=width: 64, align: right]3.02[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: left]Kerbin[/TD] [TD=align: right]5.27[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: left]Mun[/TD] [TD=align: right]31.74[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: left]Minmus[/TD] [TD=align: right]105.36[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: left]Moho[/TD] [TD=align: right]19.16[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: left]Eve[/TD] [TD=align: right]3.1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: left]Duna[/TD] [TD=align: right]17.56[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: left]Ike[/TD] [TD=align: right]47.04[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: left]Jool[/TD] [TD=align: right]6.59[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: left]Laythe[/TD] [TD=align: right]6.59[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: left]Vall[/TD] [TD=align: right]22.42[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: left]Bop[/TD] [TD=align: right]87.8[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: left]Tylo[/TD] [TD=align: right]526.8[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: left]Gilly[/TD] [TD=align: right]1053.61[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: left]Pol[/TD] [TD=align: right]138.63[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: left]Dres[/TD] [TD=align: right]45.81[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD=align: left]Eeloo[/TD] [TD=align: right]30.63[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]

I second that. Even with those instructions, I still can't find it. Back to using MechJeb...

Could you maybe be bothered to check the numbers? They surely do seem obviously wrong. Tylo's gravity surely feels more like Kerbin than Gilly in-game. but maybe we need to file a bug-report to Squad if KSP reports wrong. As it is now, I cannot rely on Mechjeb to adjust my Tylo lander's TWR. Can someone else try Mk1, RT-10, AR202 (or any other test setup) and see what MechJeb says about Tylo?

Is it just me or does MechJeb get Tylo's gravity all wrong (only twice that of Gilly)?

That looks very promising. Can't wait to try them out. The foot on the "real leg" looks a little smallish compared to the rest of the very strong-looking leg. I like where this is going. Points: I think you can let the RCS nozzles be flush with the pod, it will save a lot of polygons. The OMS end of the pod looks a little harshly truncated, with that "leaf" over the nozzles. Maybe let the backplate follow a 1.25m half-circle, and then exactly at the midpoint, lift off, and smoothly curve into the leaf: (Sorry for the horrible Paint-job.) - - - Updated - - - Forgot some design issues: I don't think that is expansive enough coloring for the thrust plates. While your jpgs have do have compression artifacts, it still seems much less visible than the vertical inner-walls on the command pods. Maybe just fill in that whole circle? The SuperDibamus' two front-side nozzles kind of clash with the single wide blue line. As the blue line is about the same width as the nozzles, consider having two lines that get truncated by the nozzles (i.e. the round end IS the nozzle), or even extending through the nozzle, curving along the pod ridge around to the other side, like a giant upside-down blue U with two round parts being black (nozzles). - - - Updated - - - Any considerations to the engine thrust and thruster power of the SuperDibamus? I am thinking something like 180 kN and 16 KN, i.e. 50% increase over the Mark 55 (and in the gap before the 200–220 LV-T45–Poodle area.) and a 50% increase over the Vernor, all with standard Isp.

I'm looking forward. 1. The single leg (which reminds me of that tutorial...) looks very spidery. Is it possible to spread the innermost dual-blade part into a triangle, and unfold until the "upper-arm" and "underarm" are in a straight line, like a Y when extended? 2. For both types of legs, can you make them more like 45 degrees? They are to create a wide base more than carrying weight. 3. Also, regarding my previous request for a modification of the LT-2: I didn't mean to introduce any new elements, only, so-to-say, "stretch" current ones into a wider blade-like leg. 4. A SuperDibamus that transforms a horizontal 1.25m circle into a smooth pod, round on the sides and above, a little flatter below, with two nozzles below, and two cone-holes in each other direction, sounds amazing too. Much harder to model though. 5. Can we have top-size indicating colors on the SpaceY 5m and 3.75m thrust plates? Also the docking ports could use blue/orange cross-hair swaths or something like that. Just call the 5m one "SpaceY Docking Port" the 3.75m "Kerbodyne/SpaceY...", with a description matching the SGS. 6. I thought more about it, and now like the Roman scheme better: The "Rose" could be "A5-1viii+2", and the quad 2.5m "A5-2iv".