PocketBrotector

That would be good! LES seems like one of those things that you don't want to wait around for I suppose that means coming to terms with the notion that @jnrobinson and @bsquiklehausen are, realistically, absent for the indefinite short term? A single release with a new thread should certainly improve discoverability and ease of installation, at any rate. And because it can't be said enough: great work and thanks! (That include @Kerbas_ad_astra of course). Always nice to see the community taking on maintenance of beloved mods.

The Puff effects work like a charm! The deployment animation runs, then I get thrust, exhaust, and sound. The engines retract upon shutdown too. Yes, this has been the case for as long as I have used the mod. I believe that the thrust is off-center so that the command module is yanked laterally away from the (exploding) launch vehicle during an abort. Given that the TWR of the command module is likely so much higher than that of the launcher, I'm not sure if this is a necessary feature, but I'm not an LES designer. The lateral movement does seem more pronounced in the stock and Taurus escape systems than in videos of Apollo and SpaceX abort tests. Will you be adjusting the mass of the ore tank for the next version of your patch? (4.667t to keep the ratio consistent with the 2.5m stock tank) Also, cheers for CTT support!

I must have been hallucinating late last night because I just tried it again (DeployableEngines, no BahaSP, and no Landertron) and I'm back to the original behavior: thrust and exhaust but no animation in flight. I am using TaurusContinued v0.1.1 (or 0.2 as it appears in the changelog) with TaurusHCV 1.5.3 and my orbital engine patch. DebugStuff does report that ModuleDeployableEngine is present. I can use other deployable engines without apparent issue (the Chelyabinsk cryoengine is working normally).

I was able to reproduce it consistently with the Mk1-2 command pod, but I didn't confirm if it happens consistently on other crewable parts. Edit: looks like it's happening on stock parts but not parts from mods... I think.

DeployableEngines is up to date (it is the version distributed with CryoEngines 0.4.2). However now I'm getting different behavior... the engine deployment animation runs as soon as the pod is placed in the VAB (no toggle exists in the right-click menu), and they're deployed upon launch as well (no staging or activation required.) Weird - I'm not sure what changed... Interestingly using BahaSp alone results in a working animation and working thrust, but no exhaust and no sound!

Yeah, I forget how or why I decided this was something I wanted... I think it was because I was reluctant to haul around extra engines that I couldn't use. The downside of a built-in LES is that you can never eject it! In the absence of anything to balance it against, I'm inclined to agree. Creating new science labs doesn't seem to be an exact science, so to speak, but here's my thinking: 1.5x the crew times (5.5t/3.5t = 1.57)x the mass equals 2.357x the overall effectiveness... plus a fudge factor to represent "larger parts are harder to launch but more efficient"... gives a nice round number of 2.5x The animation toggle works fine in the VAB. Staging, right-click + "active engine", and hotkey all produce the same result: I get thrust and exhaust but no deployment animation. I have DeployableEngines but not Landertron; results seem to be the same with or without BahaSP. Thanks for your work on this!

I use a config to set all parts to empty - I'm pretty sure this worked fine when I used it back in 1.0.5 or so: However if I create a new vessel it may be automatically populated with crew anyway. Repro: create new game (sandbox) create new vessel consisting of just a mk1-2 command pod Switch to Crew tab and see Jeb, Bill, and Bob already present. Once the vessel is created and the crew viewed, it does seem to correctly remember any changes I make to the crew setup (e.g. substituting Val for Jeb.) So the most important functionality is still there; I don't have to kick out Jeb every flight, just once per craft.

Is this still working as expected in 1.2.1? I've noticed that the crew assignment in new vessels seems to be ignoring my settings. Anyone else noticed unexpected behavior?

@Deimos Rast Very nice! Yes please. Though the HCV engines were originally intended as an LES, I like the versatility that comes with having them as throttle-capable monoprop engines - it means that they can be used for propulsive landings or even orbital maneuvers (sort of a Draco/SuperDraco hybrid). When I played around with this a while back, I had to boost the fuel capacity of the pod to 250 units and the Isp of the engines to that of a stock Thud in order to get enough sea-level dv to pull off a suicide burn for a pure-propulsive landing. The big science lab's rate of science production is unbalanced in v1.5.3 (available only via MEGA - the Curse download is still v1.5.2), partly because the reducing researchTime variable from 7 to 6 increases processing speed by an entire order of magnitude. Elsewhere on the forums someone figured out the formula for science production: Given that the SPB has 1.5 times the crew of an MPL and a little more than 1.5 times the mass, I figure a fair science production rate would be about 2.5 times stock, which we can accomplish with these values: Side by side comparison: Other thoughts: The pancake-shaped fuel tank is a bit too heavy at 1.15t (should be 1.125t at stock tank ratios). The ore tank is also too heavy at 5t (should probably be 4.667t) though there is not a lot of consistency on mass/capacity ratios for stock ore tanks. The SAS-Battery should perhaps be even a bit lighter (about .733t) based on stock ratios of mass/EC and mass/torque. The Quadroodle engines have kind of a high Isp (375 vs 350 for the Poodle). On the other hand stock vacuum engines generally get higher Isp as they get larger, and there's no true stock 3.75m vacuum engine to balance against, so meh. (SpaceY's Penguin engine is even more efficient at 390 Isp, so I'm not sure that there's a One True Way to balance new big vacuum engines.) Yay for DeployableEngines support - unfortunately I'm not getting an deployment animation when the engines fire: screenshot Edit: also it appears a couple of earlier issues may still be extant:

Community Tech Tree patch below. (Nodes match SpaceY by diameter.) Edit: And a simple DIRECT flag

I highly recommend RLA stockalike for those applications - it has enough specialized size0 and size00 parts to make suborbital sounding rockets and even .625m satellite launch stacks a lot of fun.

I picked up this mod for the tank textures (thank you!) but found that I also quite liked the engines as well. They really mitigate the tedium of early career mode, much of which is caused by the mediocre selection of lackluster early stock engines. That said I would like to make a couple of observations/suggestions: The vacuum engines are balanced against the Poodle which makes them just a little too good. The Poodle is basically the best non-nuclear vacuum engine in the game which is partly offset by the fact that it is also among the largest/heaviest. I have noticed that other mods (RLA Stockalike, Near Future Spacecraft) give trade offs to miniature vacuum engines by slightly penalizing the Isp or TWR, removing the alternator or reducing gimbal, etc. (However I do recognize that balancing is a matter of judgment calls and personal preference so I hope that doesn't come across as a thoughtless criticism.) The only self-described lifter engine in the pack is on the small side. There's a big gap in the stock game between the T-45 and Skipper where rocket stacks of a certain size tend to be either under- or over-powered on the first stage. (It's possible to make do with a T-30 or SRBs but their lower Isp and lack of gimbal tend to create another cascade of issues that need their own workarounds.) But the MoarMk1 lifter is even less powerful than a T45 so it's got a pretty narrow use case. Lastly I like the coherent visual style of the engine series but I find it's hard to tell them apart in the catalog icons - it would be neat to have some kind of color coding or labeling somewhere on each part so that we can see at a glance which is a vacuum/sustainer/lifter etc. (Same thing for the LFO vs LF-only tanks - the stripes aren't readily visible in the part catalog so I often find myself grabbing the wrong type of tank.)

Here is a config that re-balances & re-imagines several of the mod's features for 1.2. In general I envision two practical use cases for microsats: Cheap relay networks - microsats are too small for interplanetary relays but you could easily extend existing coverage of foreign bodies with these. (Or you could use them for a geostationary network if playing without DSN stations, etc.) Cheap access to space for compact science experiments, as in real life - the science parts from USI SoundingRockets can be easily combined with microsat probe parts for this. I wanted to keep everything practical while maintaining balance against stock - i.e. incorporating trade-offs associated with tiny parts without sacrificing quality of life. Details: Probe core gets lots of changes: Hibernation added but electricity use in general is increased SAS Level 0 added - mostly because piloting craft without any SAS is a miserable experience Reaction wheel electricity consumption reduced to approximately match stock Internal antenna added with 500m range. Suitable for LKO use even with a Level 1 tracking station, but not able to reach the Mun even with a Level 3 tracking station. SAS upgrade part hidden and replaced with a PartUpgrade to unlock Level 1 SAS Antennas have been redone: The folded dipole is a direct antenna with a range of 5km and combinability of 0.5 The folding dish is equivalent to the Communatron 16 whip antenna The fixed dish is equivalent to the HG-5 "broomstick" relay antenna The survey scanner was a bit of a cheat because it was so much lighter and smaller than the stock survey scanner. It has been replaced with a part granting OKTO2-equivalent access to KerbNet (which is not otherwise available in the 0.35m form factor.) Lots of parts tweaked for mass, etc. to match stock balance; and in a couple cases to match other part packs (Near Future Spacecraft and RLA Stockalike.) Categories updated for 1.2

Here you go - Dropbox download with readme. Edit - Updated. I decided to give most of the probe cores OKTO2-equivalent KerbNet access based on their position in the tech tree.

Are there balancing guidelines for incorporating life support functionality into other parts under the new v0.5 system? i.e. the ratios and capacities for recyclers, converters, multipliers, etc. to assign to parts based on their mass and other considerations? Asking because I had created configs for earlier versions of USI-LS to support other part packs (e.g. Nertea's Stockalike Station Parts). Want to make sure I am following the current balancing logic if I submit updates.

Here is a quick and dirty cfg to add the 1.2 features (antennas, KerbNet, hibernation) to RLA probes and to move the decoupler/separator to the new Coupling category.

I like these tiny payloads - satellites are getting smaller in real life, so there's no reason they shouldn't in KSP as well! I found that the stats of some of these parts (mass ratios, engine performance, etc.) compared unfavorably to stock (or top-tier mods like RLA), so I started tweaking them in ModuleManager... before long, I found that I had rebalanced most of the pack. My suggested values are here:

Kerbin year and day length is part of the stock game. One day is six hours, one year is 426 days. It's based in the rotation of Kerbin on its axis and around its sun, respectively. The 30-day month is a convention used mostly by USI-LS. It's true that it doesn't match up "cleanly" to the rest of the stock game calendar... But then again, that's pretty much true of the real-world calendar as well, which has a long history of oddities with lunar months, leap days, manual adjustments, etc.

One month is 30 days, one year is 426 days Yes, otherwise kerbals' digestion would violate conservation of mass. The 1.1 update reduces cost of Supplies. Also fertilizer is the way to go for interplanetary voyages - saves mass and is also cheaper per unit (Have you seen what they charge for astronaut ice cream in today's science museum gift shops though?)

@RoverDude, quick question re: adding USI-LS support to parts from other mods: are there any issues with adding KerbalMonths and/or hab multipliers to parts that don't actually have a crew capacity? I had a brief conversation with jofwu about it here and I don't anticipate any problems, but I figured I would double-check with you to make sure. Thinking about submitting some updated pull requests to Nertea for USI-LS support of the crew tubes in Stockalike Station Parts and Near Future Construction, which are habitable but don't actually have seats.

Well you've only shown the StageRecovery readout, not the actual craft in question. Without any information about what's actually on the stages, I doubt anyone will be able to answer questions about them.

It is showing you the terminal velocity (at sea level, presumably) and expected fund-recovery fraction for each stage, assuming fully deployed chutes. Looks like everything is working fine here.

Looks like that is a different mod that was initially named the same. If you want to use StockFuelSwitch, it's just this config plus the dependencies (InstellarFuelSwitch and ModuleManager): Copy and paste that into a text editor like Notepad, save it as something like StockFuelSwitch.cfg, and drop it and the dependencies into your GameData folder.

It looks like this is working as intended in 1.0.5 for me - are you using the latest version of the mod, and are your config files in the correct format for the new version? Here is a config to add some (first) names of real astronauts, per Wikipedia's list: If this mod is still under development, I'd like to request a feature that attempts to avoid duplicate kerbal names if possible. Something like: make up to ~10 attempts to regenerate a kerbal's name if it duplicates an existing kerbal's name, then fall back onto the default prefix/suffix name-generation if every attempt resulted in another duplicate. That way we could (e.g.) set up configs to bias name generation towards lists of "proper" names, but fall back on the default "goofy" names as we start to run out of unique proper names. Edit: a couple more for characters from The Martian and Red Mars.

Totally possible with a little tweaking. To get the 200-300m/s atmospheric dv needed for a purely propulsive capsule landing, I had to improve the Isp substantially (using the Thud as a template) and bump up the fuel storage. The heat shield adds a substantial amount of weight, so I added a decoupler to it. I just hope you're comfortable making suicide burns, as there's not much margin for error... I incorporated these changes into some miscellaneous tweaks I have here - there are a few Taurus parts that are a little too heavy compared to stock, and the Quadroodle's Isp is somewhat too good IMO.