Tyko

Correct...you can accomplish the same thing by using service bays. Just put all the science parts, batteries and antenna inside a service bay or find other ways to get creative - which is really the essence of KSP. The biggest benefit of service bays over your all-in-one part approach are that you can build one at any point on the tech tree using the parts you've unlocked instead of waiting until you've unlocked all the tech in your all-in-one part. Another bene is you can customize for each mission rather than carrying unnecessary weight for experiments that don't apply to a particular mission. Here are some examples of different solutions I've used. This is my fav little design with the basic experiments in a downscaled .625m service bay This one include goo and material, but also a probe core and solar panels. The entire top separates from the stack for reentry. There's a heat shield below and a parachute above Here's another design that doesn't even need a Bay. I just designed it so all the parts were sheltered during reentry by the heat shield Another design the doesn't even need a Service Bay And this is one of my favs...a drilling rig with the ISRU, KAS storage, USI-LS components, lights and even thermal kit all in a 3.75m Service Bay

Would you consider giving these the ability to switch fuel types? I really like the design and have been experimenting with other uses for them.

Click the "report post" button and leave a note there that you want it moved. They'll find it a lot more quickly

There's a mod called ZerominiAVC that takes care of that.

Do you have problems with the colliders when you rescale them? Last time I fooled around with this I had way too many cases where the visible surface was well above the collider.

@Lisias thanks for working on this! Your releases have two folders - GameData and PluginData. Do I need to do anything with the contents of PluginData to play the game?

Can you share the code you use to create larger asteroids?

I encountered it on really light landers = < 1000Kg. They're little probes

Thanks..I didn't have time last night to play with it more. Any chance of adding the cross back in as an option? That used to be very accurate in all the views.

@Kerbas_ad_astra are the docking port lights fixed in the latest build? The build I'm using I can still light up the planet below with the docking light.

Thanks for the replies It's not a pixel or two...refer back to the pix I posted above. In the first pic I placed a waypoint as "exactly" on the equator as I could. I carefully positioned the mouse right on the equator and clicked. When I go out to KSP map mode the equator , as shown by the orbit line, is a good 20% of the way up the waypoint icon. If it were off by a pixel or two then the line would still be passing very close to the tip of the waypoint icon, not quite a ways up the icon.

SWEET

I tried that. It's not the initial placement that's the problem, it's when you are in the KSP map mode and you're trying to match your trajectory line with the correct point designated. there's no clear visual cue on the giant teardrop as to exactly where I placed it in the first place.

@DMagic How do you precisely place the "teardrop" marker for precision landings? the old X shaped market was easier to understand because the center of the X was the target point. With the teardrop the actual point targeted seems to vary depending on which view i'm using. Here's the ScanSat view. I put the mouse pointer exactly on the equator and clicked. The marker is circled in red. I'm trying to land in that little dark lowlands area, so I don't have a lot of margin for error: Here's the same marker viewed from Map mode. I was trying to use the marker as a target, but now a big portion of the teardrop is below the equator. I could easily miss that small Lowlands area because of that difference.

did you read all the instructions on that page including the "idiot proof instructions" link?

it's still a problem. As I increase dampers the bounces become shorter, but don't entirely go away. When I set dampers at maximum the bounces become very short but the frequency increases so the craft appears to be vibrating and slowly vibrates down even a gentle slope or in a circle if it's on flat ground. This is really annoying. This wasn't a problem for me in 1.3.x and it's been a problem ever since. Landers working should be table stakes for a space game and needs to work right.

The Ant is awesome. there's also a compact version (without the 0.625m ring at the top) called the Fire Ant in Ven's Stock Revamp. I use clusters of 2, 3 or 4 Fire Ants for small probes all the time.

I've been testing out all the various sounds and they're a massive improvement. I agree with @Gordon Dry that verniers and other small engine sounds, might need a volume check.

I forgot that movie! Have to go back and watch...the little robots were interesting.

Dunno...I wasn't trying to create a better booster. I was offering a suggestion for a way @Kroslev Kerman could have his SRB "fuel tanks" and not have to liquefy the solid fuel - which, to your point, would be silly. That said, I'd imagine the reason NASA uses one big booster is driven by complexity and cost. Since complexity and cost are the two main reasons SRBs are used at all (in KSP or RL), it would be counterproductive to have multiple stages with multiple nozzles.

I was responding to the original idea from @Kroslev Kerman about how to add SRB fuel tanks and suggesting a workable way to achieve their goal without worrying about pumps. The burn time of RL SRBs, as you pointed out above, is governed by the shape of the hole. They could tune the shape to have a longer burn time at the same thrust if they wanted to. I never said these would "work" like the STS/SLS SRBs. I said they would be "built" like those by stacking fuel segments. Engines don't fail in KSP, so Kerbals wouldn't have to worry about a Challenger type problem Even in real life NASA is going to continue using the design, so they must be pretty confident they've solved the "worrisome thing"

No, only the bottom would have a nozzle. The others would be just fuel and the entire stack of cans would burn as one unit. Read up on the how the Shuttle & SLS SRBs are built

Yea, pumpable solid fuel doesn't make any sense. I would like to see stackable solid fuel cannisters though - kind of a kerbal version of how the Shuttle / SLS SRBs are built. You'd start with the bottom component containing some fuel and the nozzle, then stack additional cans on top to increase the burn time.

Check out this thread. Texture Replacer can make many kinds of changes and has many resources

It would help a lot if you posted pictures of your rocket. Otherwise we are all just guessing