Shadowmage

You need to make sure the airlock collider is larger than the ladder collider. If the raycast hits the ladder collider before the airlock, no mouse-over action will be available. Even a very minor amount of oversize should work (few cm).

Will be using mesh-variant setups like the nose-cones. Basically it will be the thrust-plates from PP, but with engines integrated all into a single part, with hand-built models for everything. There will be one part in the editor per stack size (0.625m, 1.25m, 1.875m, 2.5m, 3.75m). You will slap this onto your rocket in its intended position/orientation. From there you will pick the engine type and clustering configuration through right-click menus (or other GUI selection in the future). I would love to do completely custom models per-engine-per-cluster-per-stack size; but ugh... that is far too many models and textures to manage. It is already going to be a handful as it is. After 1.1 is release I will likely revisit the GUI and parts layout to combine them -all- into a single part where you add it to the ship and right-click to configure everything (stack size, engine type, cluster layout). Would need a more complex GUI than I can currently do using stock right-click mechanics, so this will have to wait until the GUI updates. (Yes, I know, it -is- possible to do custom GUI's right now, such as Real-Fuels fuel selection GUI, but I'm holding off on doing any GUI work until Squad has a unified system in place). - - - Updated - - - Ooh.. new math to learn I might have the diameters off a bit currently if what you've calculated is close to accurate; I only found one mention of diameter (1.25m) but it did not specify which variant, and with such an even/round number it looked a bit suspect (usually it would be like 1235mm or something). The walls of the bell usually only appear to be ~1.5cm thick for most engines that I've examined, so the outer diameter would likely not be too much greater than what you have listed. I've included multiple variants of some of the engines as I intend some of those variants to become unlocked earlier in career-mode games. Yes, some will likely become obsoleted later in the game by other variants/other engines. Some may have specific characteristics that still make them desirable late-game. Also, variants are fairly easy to create as they generally will share a lot of geometry (and possibly texture). Still working through the whole thing though, so I'm open to suggestions. Certainly some of the variant stuff will come later. The initial selection might only be 8-10 engines, though I've tried to get a decent assortment put together for various purposes. - - - Updated - - - I intend on making several shrouded/shielded mounts as well, where mostly just the bell is sticking out. And yes, some will be 'oversized' similar to the Saturn and SLS core stages where the engines protrude out the side a bit. Some engines will even have specific covers for that engine in some setups; such as the RS-68 (pretty much requires a custom shroud with those big arms/exhaust ducts sticking out). I even intend on providing several aesthetic-only layout options for some cluster configurations (such as 5 engines in a ring, 5 engines in a cross, or 5 engines in a flattened cross (SLS)). Some of those aesthetic variants might not be available initially, but if I do the coding right they will be easy enough to add in later.

And therein lies the problem. You cannot do a clean engine implementation while deriving the class from the stock ModuleEngines (you are stuck with all of the stock garbage that way). Yes, MJ/etc pick up subclasses of ModuleEngines properly; my problem is that they do not pick up clean (non-derived) base classes, regardless of interface used (e.g. there is a IThrustProvider interface in stock, but MJ/etc do not use it for determining what module is an engine). Anyway, I've moved past the whole unable-to-use-custom-engine-class problem, and have settled on using the stock engine modules with all their quirks and inefficiencies. Now I just need to find the best way to manipulate it to make it work with my intended setup (as far as I know it is all doable; all the fields I need to manipulate in the engine module are public / visible / readily alterable). The biggest bit that I haven't worked out yet is the run-time population of the FX for the different engines. Hmm... will def. look into the RF EnginesConfig module, if nothing else than as to references as to how they are manipulating stats/etc. And solver engines; I've heard the name tossed around a ton (especially in regards to RO), but have never investigated them/looked at it. Will do that before I start doing the coding end of things. Might not have to completely re-invent the wheel, as it where. Did quite a bit of trimming to the engine mounts list, using smaller sized mounts where possible (e.g. not creating the bigger one if a smaller size with the same engines exists), and I'm down to 35 distinct models that I need to make (not including the oversized mounts... still undecided as to the best way to do those/what sizes).

MultiModeEngine is a separate module entirely (it is not an engine module, merely interacts with/controls the engine modules) and you may only have one MultiModeEngine on a part (or rather, multiples will not interact properly; each controls a distinct set of engines, with no opportunity for chaining). MJ/KER etc check for this module explicitly to see which engine stats they should use. Without MultiModeEngine module, multiple engine modules do not work properly (e.g. the SC-B-SM gives improper thrust and dV values if you disable one of its engines). And there is no way to get a single MultiModeEngine module to support the many different engine configs that I will be needing. Will investigate the RF module though; didn't think that I noticed any custom engine modules when I was looking through the repo last week, but granted I was looking for fuel tank stuff rather than engines. Sadly, I'm still stuck using either ModuleEngines or ModuleEnginesFX (or a custom derived class from one or the other), due to lack of support of non-derived engine module classes in MJ/etc. Example: At one point I did write an entirely custom engine module, that solved many of the performance problems and quirks in the stock engine module; sadly, MJ/etc would not recognize it because they are hard-coded to only support engine modules that derive from the stock classes; would need a common API/stock support with a generic IEngineModule interface or some such to make things work cleanly). That said, if I do write up a custom engine module I could certainly look to implement some details from the RF engine module; will know more after I start working on the coding side of this project. Edit: -- Just found an additional reduction technique I can employ for the engine mounts to cut down on the number of models that I need to create. It won't effect the end-results / number of variants, except for some variants/cluster setups you may use a smaller tank mount than the tank you are mounting it on. For example, there is no need for a 3x 1.5m mount for 5m tanks, as there will be a 3x 1.5m mount for 3.75m tanks that could be mounted on a 5m-3.75m tank adapter (which, as they are included in the tanks, is zero extra parts). But there will be a 4x 1.5m and 5x 1.5m mount for 5m tanks as those variants are not available in smaller sizes. Still working on figuring out all the mount variants I need to come up with. Should have a final # by the end of the day.

The part is only going to have a single ModuleEngines/ModuleEnginesFX (likely the latter). There will be a second module (SSTUCustomEngineCluster) that will be responsible for all mesh-switching, recreating thrust transforms in the proper place, and doing run-time altering of the engine stats to match those of the selected engine and cluster setup. Generally I've found that enabling/disabling multiple modules on the same part does not work out well, especially in regards to compatibility; MJ/etc don't check to see if a module is disabled, and count it as an engine/decoupler/whatever regardless. I'm actually working through the engine mount/variant count at the moment. So far I have 120 distinct mounts (and that is without counting any over-sized mounts; e.g. SLS/SaturnV/Pyrios). Multiply that by the engines usable for each mount size (generally 4 per mount size), and you still have ~480 distinct part variants (can minus some for the non-existent 0.375m, 2.625, 3m engines, but then add nearly the same amount for the oversized/lower stage mounting options). Will likely have a final count later today... but yes, it is definitely going to be multiple hundreds of distinct variants. Yes, this is going to take me awhile to put together; just the geometry for the mounts will likely take a few days/weeks to put together (thats ... alot ... of mounts). Granted, some will just be rescales (38/120 are rescales currently), but is still a ton of parts to put together.

My choices are either plugin-based cluster manipulation with stats loaded from config; or making 20(engines) * 6 (stack sizes) * 9 (cluster variants) different engine parts (1080 parts, less as not all are available in all combos, but still many hundreds). I don't think anyone wants that kind of editor bloat, and I don't want to make that many different parts. Not when I can get it down to 6 editor parts. It is a known caveat that there might be mods it will not play nicely with 'out of the box'. As with RF/RO/etc, I might need to do some compat patching on my end. However, as with the fuel tanks, it will all be config based, so most anything should be changeable through simple MM patch. Honestly though, the ability to use engine clusters for me far outweighs any incompatibility problems. Many ideas I cannot realize in-game due to KSPs part-count limitations; and removing that restriction from the engines/clusters would be simply awesome. I was not able to find any concrete data on the Merlins; especially there was a lack of diagrams and bell diameter information. However, I rough-guessed about where they would be based on the stats I did have, and have added 6 different Merlin variants to the list (B / B-vacuum, C / C-vaccum, D / D-vacuum) (they might not even really exist in those combinations...but w/e). AJ26 seems like one I could look into; already have a few references/info/pics saved on it. RS-27A - not sure I've seen that one mentioned before (or run across it)... will definitely look into it though, seems like it is in the size range that I need. Current engine list: (smallest at top, largest at the bottom, colored by engine-mount size) Please let me know if you spot any vastly incorrect stats (isp, thrust, mass). Also, if you have any other suggestions to fill in the empty spots. Likely nothing based on real life will use the biggest mount sizes (2.625, 3m), I will likely come up with some custom/derivative designs to fill in the 'super-huge' engine section (s). The engines named such as M1B, M1C are the Merlin variants (M1B is lifter, M1BV is vacuum variant). If you have concrete stats on these, would be good as well. Many were just guessed/inferred. The entire dark-green section at the top is likely going to be filled with thrusters/large RCS systems... not quite sure yet, suggestions welcome. Edit -- forgot to mention, before anyone asks, the RS-69 and RS-69B listed on the sheet is a custom derivative/variant of the RS-68 that has been optimized for clustering and made more compact, and the B sub-variant comes with an extendable nozzle for superb vacuum performance. - - - Updated - - - Yes, they will be coming in a near-future update (probably the same time I release the initial engine testing stuff). - - - Updated - - - Thanks a ton I'm sure there are a few others who will express similar thanks. Have had lots of questions regarding RO configs, and now I have something to point them towards. Will definitely be working with you more as I start getting the engine cluster stuff put together, and will likely try to help you develop configs/patches as the parts are developed. Can give some thought to the nose-cone stuff; honestly though if I'm going to do a jettison motor type thing I'll likely combine it into a radial decoupler. Gah...why can't KSP just 'fix' the staging stuff and allow one staging-icon/action-per-partModule rather than per-part (or remove the restrictions altogether)? Would make this entire thing so much easier to deal with, and many of my earlier designs would have actually worked.

That is the plan Should have a single part per stock stack-size that allows you to select the type and # of engines (and thus cluster layout). Still a bit to figure out, but should have some preliminary mock ups later tonight (hopefully). Thanks Still tons of work to do on them, most are in pretty rough shape at the moment (literally, have just done rough geometry work on them). But should be plenty good to do the initial testing with and finish the design for the mounting system. Should have a couple of more to show later today, including a new custom/derivative engine (I'm getting -much- faster at the rough geometry work on them... now it only takes 2-4 hours rather than 2-4 days ). Still missing a selection of smaller engines, esp. lifters. Anyone have suggestions that I could/should research? Will likely end up using some of the larger engines scaled down for the time being to fill in the 0.625/1.25/1.875m lifter categories. And yes, I will be doing a set of 1.875m parts; no reason to skip it, as it will all/mostly be rescaled parts from larger diameters. Have added a 1.875m 2-man command pod and service module onto the 'todo' list, though they will have to come after I finish off the rest of the core parts (tanks/engines/upper stages).

Getting the geometry (initial/basic/rough) for all of these engines in place; nearly done with all that I had listed for the initial set. Going to finish the rough geometry pass for the engines, and then figure out the mounting bit. Hope to move onto the mount geometry perhaps tomorrow, and then onto initial plugin stuff wed/thurs/fri. Aiming to have a decent set of parts(all untextured) to test this weekend for concept development and make sure things are going to work out appropriately. Here are the J2 and J2X engines (WIP): J2 J2-X And first pass at an initial mount setup (will not be keeping this exact geometry, was just playing around seeing how to do them / what they would look like)

Hmm.. that sounds bad. Will add it to the issue tracker and begin investigating for a solution for the next update. Seems there is a different processing/loading order for root parts compared to others, which has caused problems with numerous other mods as well (e.g. tweakscale, procedural parts). Will see what I can do though.

None of that is doable within a single SRB part. The staging action is already used by the main motor; so you cannot have either parachutes or separators. This is a very low-level stock KSP limitation that I can do nothing to solve.

Seems like I could add them as nose-cone variants; though I'm a bit unsure as to the purpose? Seems like (for KSP) they would just add some height/mass, but nothing useful? My intention on the upper stages is to have them quite configurable, similar to the fuel tanks (may even use the same plugin... undecided). Will know more once I finish up the engine stuff; still a bit too early to start digging into details on these. Lander Parts - no guide as of yet. Midpoint on tanks is for the decoupler. Yes, they are both suppose to point the same direction, else you could not use them on the tanks properly. Staging for those parts, using the LC decouplers, is an inner-stage/outer-stage affair rather than top/bottom. In order to use the decouplers, take a LC fuel tank and set it to a hollow variant. Add the decoupler to the part on the center node. Add a second (smaller) LC Fuel tank to the node that is on the decoupler (might need to add stuff to the top/bottom nodes of the original fuel tank before it will let you snap stuff). They are omni-decouplers, so it does not matter which stage stays attached to the ship. You can (kind of) see these in use on my Tylo lander example (in the LanderCore Imgur album on the main post). Honestly, those things worked out to be a bit more tricky to use than I would have liked, and I'm considering a simplification of the lander core parts to only include the standard solid fuel tanks. Though some of the opportunities they provide are interesting, and I'm not sure I could do some designs without them. Not sure what you are referring to? Disarm what? It is using stock modules; so if the option is available on the stock docking port or parachute, then yes; otherwise no.

Updated test release is available: https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/0.2.14-beta See the link for downloads and full change-log. Highlights include: RealFuels support for custom fuel tanks (optional, no configs included, see the RO patch set for configs, or ask for instructions) Better FX for the SRBs Rebalanced SRB thrust (heat/emissives not done yet) Rebalanced ICPS and CSM stack Procedural decoupler now has stats! Few other bugfixes

Sweet, that is good news. Working on SRB FX at the moment; have them nearly in line with KW rocketry stuff. The only bit I haven't figured out is the scaling... apparently stock effects don't have any support for scaling; and as KW rocketry uses a rescaled model, its effects are scaled in an odd manner without any way to duplicate it on an unscaled model. They are still much improved though, both the sound and visual fx. Might just see about whipping up a custom particle that allows scaling, but I'll likely save that for another time. Quite a few other balance changes, tweaks, and improvements coming for this update as well (if I can get them all done...). Will have a full list later on with the release. Should have everything ready here in a couple of hours, maybe less if I quit playing with the FX stuff.

I do not offer RO support, not really my deal (unless its low-level plugin compatibility stuff). Though JoseEduardo or StratoChief might be able to help you out if you ask nicely. One big thing though, the RF support for the fuel tanks is not publicly available yet (needs plugin update on my end, and MM patches to enable it with the RO stuff), so it likely will not work properly at the moment. Should have the compatibility in place on my end with the release later today, and the set of patch configs are still being worked on and finished up.

On the note of balance; I'm personally very torn on how to balance the CSM/ICPS stack. It is a hard bit to figure out satisfactorily. On one hand, I want to maintain consistent balance across parts. On the other, I want to custom tailor the parts for their intended purpose, but the differences in mechanics between real life and the KSP world make it difficult. I have a few intended routes to investigate (in no particular order): Option 1: CSM as Mun/Minmus capable craft, with ICPS for interplanetary CSM dV: ~1800 ICPS (with CSM) dV: >3000 Total dV: ~4800 Should allow for CSM to be lifted alone, and perform Mun/Minmus operations unaided. ICPS is balanced for stock, and should be usable as a generic upper stage. Option 2: Uhh...no clue what to call this one CSM dV: ~900- quite capable on its own, though not quite mun/minmus capable (maybe just barely...) ICPS dV: ~2400 - semi-balanced for stock, intended to be used heavily for circularization burn, possibly usable as generic upper stage for small payloads Total dV: ~3300 Option 3: Overpowered for Mun/Minmus, but not quite enough for real interplanetary missions. Basically gives loads of margin for sloppy burns or rescuing lots of kerbals. This is close to how I had it balanced several weeks back. Was very 'usable', but I personally found it a bit OP (but probably should have left it, as it worked fine...). CSM dV: ~1050 - not quite enough for an unaided Mun/Minmus mission, but plenty for return-to-kerbin burns + orbital adjustment on the way back (e.g. can return to visit a station on the way home before de-orbit). ICPS dV: ~1400 - plenty for mun/minmus burn and injection, though perhaps a bit short for allowing it to be used for circularization as well. Total dV: ~2450 Option 4: Mimic real-life performance, scaled for KSP; ICPS needed for...everything, but ICPS not very capable as its own upper stage. CSM dV: ~ 500 (enough for rendezsvous, or return from mun/minmus burn) ICPS dV: ~1500 (possible small circularization burn, trans-munar insertion, munar orbit insertion) Total dV: ~2000 CM has mass increased, propellant decreased. ICPS propellant increased; neither is really balanced in regards to stock. Any preferences as to the performance of the CM/SM/ICPS parts? Any balance#'s you would like to see in place? I'm pretty open to all of the options I posted, and would even consider examining a few more if anyone has ideas / specific #s they would like to see. I might even see about doing some MM patches for each, and let people choose which balance they want (eventually... still need to decide the standard balance). - - - Updated - - - I believe StratoChief said he would look into it after they finished the initial set of RO configs. So, yes, it sounds likely, but no, I have no idea when.

Have been working with JoseEduardo over the past couple of days to get RO/RSS/RF/MFT compatibility sorted out, and it looks like things are off to a good start. Jose and StratoChief et. al. have put together a set of MM patches for RO that apply realistic scales, masses, and performance values to most of the Series-B upper stage parts and engine clusters. And Jose and I spent a good deal of time yesterday getting RealFuels/ModularFuelTank support for the Ship Core customizable fuel tanks (works independent of RO, but was needed for RO compat). So, now you have multiple options for fuel-switching in the tanks depending on how you want to go about it and what mods you have installed. The Real-Fuels compatibility will be available with today's update. I'm not sure on the timeline on the RO config set, but I believe there was a link posted a few posts back if anyone were interested in trying out the WIP stuff. Also looking into a couple other small bug-fixes and balance changes for this update, but overall it will be a fairly small update (none of the engine stuff is even close to ready for initial testing). Ahh, yah, point taken. I suppose I should work on getting a few more of these engines finished off then? That is actually my plan for the rest of the weekend I think (after I pack up the release); I think I have a decent enough selection of basic engine geometry that I can begin working on the basics of the next stage (fuel routing, mounting, and gimbals). Hopefully I can pull this off as I am intending to, will be quite the fun little set of parts.

RL-10A-4-2N RL-10B-2-1

Hmm.. something must be off between my balance sheet and the in-game numbers then, as my sheet says it should have ~1050 dV with the CSM mounted. Still probably a bit lower than I would like; however when I had it set higher I would constantly find myself -returning- from the Mun with the ICPS still attached (and full fuel in the SM), or finding myself with the choice to jettison a half-full ICPS or attempt to land it on Minmus (bad idea btw, its too tall and likes to wobble, landing just the CSM is much easier). Will take a look at the #s to find out why the balance is off from what is supposed to be. Will also consider increasing its capability slightly, though it likely won't be in the 1500 m/s range... probably closer to the 1200 range. Honestly I should probably just apply stock balancing to it, and up the base dV on the CSM to allow it to perform its own Kerbin-SOI (Mun/Minmus) missions unassisted (Mun/Minmus dV requirements are so laughably low, my 2nd stage usually does most of the insertion burn anyway). As really the ICPS is barely needed as-is, and always will be for any reasonable balance on the CSM. Using stock balance I could repurpose the ICPS as a true upper stage, one that could be used to send the CSM (and possibly small lander) to some of the lower-dV interplanetary destinations. Tough call....

Not directly, no. But most of the part should already be available for you to build Kerbalized analogues (such as the 5-segment SRB for the Ares I first stage... which is actually my current preferred method for launching the CSM stack; much cheaper than the full liquid-fueled setup). Think I've got a pic somewhere.... Ahh, yes, there it is:

Aye, I will be offering the RS-25 in various cluster options as well / as part of the configurable engine stuff. However I have to redo it a bit to add all the plumbing/pumps and bring it in line with the other engine models. On the ICPS/HUS balance -- yep, there is a pretty wide gap between them at the moment. I'm fairly happy where the HUS is; it has been balanced (volume wise at least) to be in line with stock fuel tanks for resources and mass, and is intended as its name would suggest, a -Heavy- upper stage, to enable lifting of the 200-400t payloads that the system should be capable of. Which is also why it has gobs of thrust. I might have forgotten about the ISP; it is supposed to be down in the ~340 range. The ICPS though, has been balanced towards being a dedicated range-extender for the CSM stack to enable Mun/Minmus operation (and is likely useless for any other purpose). I'm basically trying to emulate the performance stats you would get if the thing were actually LH2 powered, without breaking stock balancing in regards to ISP. I'm not entirely happy with it though, and will likely be redoing it a bit, but unsure what direction to go with it. Would love to bring it in-line with stock balancing; the problem is you end up with >3.5kms of dV from it (with the CMS on top) due to its volume, and it ends up weighing 35t by itself due to stock fuel densities and poor ISP, making it far too heavy and powerful for its intended purpose.

I'll take a look at the SRB visual effects stuff, at least see what KW rocketry is using. There are a couple issues with the SRB that need to be resolved regarding effects, some likely will require some custom coding to get straightened out, or perhaps just custom effects with non-linear scaling. Not sure on the sounds end of things, doubt I'll be able to use their sounds though, and pretty sure there is nothing similar in stock. Will at least look into it though. Please do let me know of suggestions such as that for sounds/etc... all that stuff generally slips my mind when I'm putting together configs. Very nice, and thanks for the hard work. I'm sure many others will be thankful as well Let me know if you run into any questions regarding any config/plugin stuff along the way, will be glad to help you sort it all out. Thanks I've tried to do things in a bit of a different way, glad you are finding them useful I don't currently have any plans for other capsules...but if I do, the Soyuz stuff might well be on the list (seeing as how stock already has an Apollo-like module). I've given quite a bit of though to the whole custom engines bit lately. Lots of thought. Ideally, yes, I would love to do something along those lines, and might eventually. For now though I will likely be sticking with pre-made engine models and allow choice of cluster configurations, engine shrouds, and perhaps some stats-only 'upgrade options' (might be texture switch even?). Heh, still working out all the details. RD-170 is on the list of engines I am going to look into creating models for. No clue if I'll actually be able to do it or not, but I'm going to at least look into it at some point. Mostly it will depend on if I can find enough pictures/schematics. I'm slowly learning to do things a bit more free-hand with the modeling, but still fairly reliant on diagrams and such for physical accuracy. Today's frustrating little gem: One of the most often used upper stage engines, in one of its older variants RL-10A-3-1 (the 1966 model) Some of that piping was...not easy to figure out, and the turbopump assembly in real life has got to be the most convoluted assembly I have ever seen be cast by molds. So many ins, outs, shafts, gears...wow. And I thought the F1 turbopump was bad. Sadly, I'm not quite yet up to the task of trying to model the pump in too much detail... but I think I got the important bits. And there are many, many, different variants of this engine; trying to find consistent information was...ugh. I probably still have some details from other variants in there... hard to keep them all straight. Also going to do 2 other RL-10 variants RL-10A-4-2N -- modern day 'short' RL-10, which has a short extendable nozzle (in reality it is offered with no extension, fixed extension, or mechanical extension); minor thrust, isp, and mass increase RL-10B-2-1 -- the long one, used on the ICPS and many others. Has a nozzle extension that more than doubles the length of the nozzle, and increases ratio from 84 to ~285. decent thrust and isp increase, but more than doubles the mass. Should give a decent selection of upper stage engines as they all have fairly different stats IRL. Looking into a few other engines as well... but honestly the RL10 has been used almost exclusively for US upper stages (and I'm not all that familiar with the Russian stuff...yet). The other main candidate is the AJ-10 engine; a hypergolic thruster that has been (and still is) used everywhere, in many different variants. Between the two it should offer a fairly decent selection of smaller upper stage engines. Not quite sure what to do regarding smaller lifter / lower stage engines. I suppose I'll have to look into some of the old missiles? Any suggestions towards that end? Yes, I'm probably going to get 6+ engines made up with geometry only before I go onto the next step, as I need a good assortment of mounting and fuel inlet layouts in order to plan how the next pieces will work geometry wise (the mounting plates and fuel distributors for clusters). Hopefully I'll have enough engines by mid next week, and can start working on the mounting stuff for that weekend. So, quick heads up that there might not be much/anything on this weekends update. I'll take a look into the effects stuff likely Sat. morning, so might have some of that ready. In the meantime, if you see any bugs you need squashed for this update, let me know sooner rather than later

RS-68 here is a J2-X / RS-68 comparison shot I will be doing both the J2 (Saturn-V) and J2-X in the near future (probably next week/over the weekend). However I think my next couple will be some smaller engines -- Likely RL-10A-3 (fixed nozzle), A-4 (short extension) & B (long extension), and AJ-10 engines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJ10 - hypergolic, Delta II, Titan III, Apollo SM, Space Shuttle Orbital Engine). I've actually learned so much regarding general rocket engine construction and engineering over the past week that I might end up 'making up' some engines if/when I run out of documented real-world designs. The basic concepts are pretty simple.... fuel lines and turbopumps (or pressure-feed setup). The exact implementation differs depending on what cycle type the engine is based on (staged, generator, expander, pressure-fed). The bits that I'm still a bit unsure on are the physical dimensions to performance characteristics; going to need a larger sample set before I could draw too many conclusions on that front (or perhaps I should just learn the actual 'rocket science' behind engine bell and combustion chamber physical layout/curves/shape/etc).

I likely won't be doing the boosters (see the post above)... but... you'll have the engines and fuel tanks and nothing stopping you from making your own. Will likely even have a 2x F1B cluster with the wide shrouds on it. Will see when I get there (have not started on shrouds/mounting stuff yet). Thanks Slowly getting the hang of modeling... enjoying some of this engine work a bit; its different than most of the modeling I've done. Playing around with some new tools and techniques. Going to be a blast come time to unwrap/UV map them though As I don't use it, I likely won't be adding it. I have no problem including some configs if someone wants to submit a set though. In the meantime.... (not quite done... but very close) Some of these are actually going much quicker than I had thought, at least for the initial geometry. Might actually have something on these in a few weeks... just gotta get at least a few more engines finished up as I want a decent initial selection for all stock stack sizes. Might cheat a bit and use rescaled temporary stand-ins until I can get a full set built up.

Awesome, thanks for the pic. Nice orthographic projection, and has dimensions! Will see about doing some mock-up geometry for the F1B today (given that I already have large portions complete for the F1, it shouldn't take too long). Hmm.. that wasn't too bad. Its likely not 100% accurate (nor can it be given that the engine it is based on only exists on paper), but it is probably good enough for KSP. Still have a bit to clean up and a few more detail bits to add. And all the mounting/fuel input stuff (for both, though the way I have them setup they should be identical). And nearly finished regular F1 for comparison:

Thanks, will take a look. Really need diagrams and schematics to do much though; I have a mathematical rather than artistic mind, and trying to do things from photos (with off-perspective, and lack of dimensions) only aggravates me and results in nothing of any good getting done. Hmm.. anyone have more info on the F1B / Pyrios? (specs/images? All I can find is basically that -one- image that was linked earlier) I'm trying to figure out how the heck they fit 2 of those engines underneath that booster. The engine is still huge (even though it is shorter/smaller diameter than the full F1), and there is no way that two of them would fit beneath a strap on booster when everyhing is done at KSP scale. At 64% the engine -bell- alone is 2.2m diameter (might go as low as 2m if I shorten it more); Just not seeing how two of those are supposed to fit under a 2.5m booster? (or even a 3.75m...just would not fit). Hmm.. just found this (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2410/1) that suggests the boosters will have 5.5m tanks (3.52m at 64% scale; would probably just use 3.75m). And at that, the engines stick -way- out of the sides of the booster. Hmm...