whatdoesthisbuttondo

Yes, that looks like it could be ATM. Try updating it to latest version, and go with less aggressive settings.

Yes, that is probably a bug (or feature?) in RasterPropMonitor though.

@alexustas Just a quick heads-up, the RasterPropMonitor v0.20 did remove a few deprecated variables, namely resource-related. This does somewhat break the sweet ALCOR IVA. Since I'm using it a lot, and if you're not already working on it, I could probably go over the IVA and fix things sometime this month.

I know that is possible, but putting stuff inside things and excessive clipping I really don't like to do, feels like cheating to me. I'm one of those guys that fiddle forever in order to reduce mass by a couple of kilograms anyway, so those extra 80kg dry mass would really be inacceptable If you're using the monopropellant for RCS, the 20 units are actually enough for a regular docking maneuver, a tiny bit more would make the emergency generator a lot more viable for actual emergencies though without an extra tank when you want RCS too.

Oh my god, you are awesome! One small piece of feedback, I've been almost exclusively using the ALCOR as a lander can lately, and the only thing that really seemed a bit inconvenient was the amount of included RCS fuel, I think bumping that up by 5-6 units would balance it a bit better against the stock lander cans. Might still be a bit low compared to the 40 units we have in the MK2 can, but it would be a huge change for those builds that go without external monopropellant tanks.

That'd be even better I guess, I'm actually using that variant with stock parts most of the time, i.e. one standard monopropellant tank and a service bay with a radial tank among other things.

Nice work, love the capsule, fits perfectly into early career. One question though, for the corvus fuel tank, description says it holds a bit more monopropellant compared to the standard part of same diameter. However, the standard part is only half the height, and still holds a little more (250 on stock, 200 on corvus). Shouldn't the corvus tank be holding around 400 (and increasing mass accordingly), given that a same height stock tank assembly, using two tanks, would hold 500? I realize I can just edit the cfg to suit my needs, just wondering if balance against stock would be better this way.

Great work on that lander, quickly became my standard can due to the nice IVA capabilities. Minor issue with heat, it appears that it does start cooking in sunlight while in space. Two-stage lander I've been building, running on monopropellant only, landing legs and empty tanks for descend stage are discarded prior to ascend: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=448057569 I really, really would love to get my hands on the landing legs from the pictures in the first post

Don't think so, I've just tried it briefly and the attachment nodes don't work properly. Heat shield and docking port do not attach at all, and stock parts kinda want to attach in the middle of the pod. Looks great though, I've been looking for a Mk1-2 style pod with rcs capable docking/parachute cone forever, would really like to see this going forward.

Nice work, really great looking tanks. Kinda odd, but the most useful for me turned out to be the medium and large toroidal ones, as well as the small radial which I kinda abuse as radial engine mounts, gives great flexibility with lander design. Now for some feedback, I think the mass for the MK3 radial tanks could be lowered a bit, I know MK3 parts are supposed to be heavy, but I feel they offer not really enough fuel for the mass they have, especially the end pieces. The MK3 radial extenders also are not working well with the symmetry tool, I haven't yet found a way to get around having to manually place them on both sides, which in turn breaks wing placement on them with the symmetry tool. Not a deal breaker though, just a minor nuisance.