Naf5000

I've got a strange bug; none of the 1.875 meter engines show up in the VAB/SPH. I can see the config files, but so far as I can tell the game isn't using them. Later on I might try sifting through the debug logs to figure it out, but I wanted to see if anyone has a fix they know of first because I have a **** ton of mods and it'd take ages to sort through them all.

@Orionkermin I don't suppose you might make a version of that with non-foil plated tanks? I really, really don't like the way gold foil looks. On anything. I just sorta ignore the way LV-909s look. You don't have to, obviously, since that's the only problem I see about the design and it's a problem only I have, but still... Please?

I don't know, hydrogen seems TOO unstable. I can excuse the swimming pools reused as fuel tanks as simply being massively over-engineered swimming pools. Hydrogen? Not so much. Hot air seems like the most Kerbal way to go about it. Fire? Check. Streams of hot air? Check. High risk of death? Half-check. Plus with hot air you can add a whale-oil cost for gaining or maintaining altitude. No free lift.

'Cause it's still in active development. Most of the parts are unpolished, and some of them are straight-up placeholders. Basically, LLL is as much of a work in progress as KSP itself.

Not really stockalike, and it seems rather unfinished. The colors seem like they would work, though.

Good to see this isn't dead! If you can get these parts to work with that Goodwill plugin it will make things much simpler on our end. Just be sure you don't burn yourself out trying; these parts would be worth a page or two in the VAB. And Sirkut, as much as it's been said before, you did good work with the original IR parts. The only reason people refer to them as ugly is because they clash with most other KSP parts. If you put them with some of the SRI parts, they'd blend much better. It's a stylistic problem, not a quality problem.

Shiny! I eagerly await an in-game release.

I look forward to some nice stockalike versions of real parts. When you get to the texturing phase, I recommend asking Porkjet for advice. That pig/man/kerbal does stockalike textures like nobody else, and he seems really helpful. You may also want to talk to Lack and Orionkerman, as they're the other main stockalike modders right now.

If you want some advice, think about how your parts will expand possible craft design. From what you said about the command pod, it seems like it's going to be filling the same design niche occupied by the mk1 capsule. If you want to expand our options, you could try making, for example, something like a 1 meter cupola. Something with high-visibilty, so people who like IVAs have a nice view, but with no top connector for parachutes or whatever.

It's still in re-development. There's an early version with four different tracks somewhere around. If you want I can dig up a link.

The line between being sarcastic and being an ass is a vague one, but you've most certainly crossed it. If I asked you to go build me a bookshelf without a manual or anyone to give you assistance, it'd take you a pretty long time to do right, assuming you don't have any carpentry experience. Just because something is simple and easy doesn't mean everyone knows how to do it by default.

It is wonderful to see this being brought back. However, I have a request. PLEASE PUT SUSPENSION ON ALL THE TRACKS. Only one of the concept tracts can conform to the terrain, and anything you build with the other tracks cannot handle terrain rougher than a golf ball. I mean, I still try to use them, but I can only get so far. Usually to the end of the runway.

I think if you want to have four you should move the airlock so it's in the middle of the part. The doors on planes are in between the rows of chairs, not directly next to them.

Could you make a bicoupler before engaging in specialized engines? Just having a couple of turbojets is enough to make a good suborbital hop. And if you do make a bicoupler, please make sure it can fit basic turbojets. The one in Tevario's Pizza and Aerospace doesn't, and it makes low-altitute planes suffer from the relatively inefficient ISP of turbojets at sea level.

I don't suppose you could cut the 3m and 5m engines off their fuel tanks? It's edging a little too close to a canned spacecraft for my taste.

You could add a special cargo bay docking port with no surface attach, so that it doesn't snap on to the bay while you try to attach it. You could also make it have no-fuel-crossfeed, to emphasize that it's not for general use.

I think the various trusses should probably be given descriptive names like the stock structural elements have. So it'd be names like Large Robotics Truss (1m), Small Robotics Truss (2m), and Robotics [Whatever you wind up designing the small structural elements as] (4m).

Here's an idea; Rover fuselages! Take a standard circular fuselage, flatten a side, shift the COM as far towards the side you flattened as possible (to shift the COM closer to with wheelbase), and you've got the perfect piece to build a rover with. Alternatively, a radially attached piece that has the same effect, with the upside of not requiring seperate new parts for fuel tanks, monopropellent storage, and batteries.

If you want to differentiate this pod from the 1m command pod and lander can, why not give it increased RCS capacity and really weak reaction wheels, sorta like what Porkjet did to make his Orbital Orb distinct from other stock cockpits. That way you could stick some little landing legs and RCS thrusters on this thing and use it as an escape pod.

How about calling hinges Swing-o-Matics and joints Pivotrons?

I flew a Cessna once. It is highly enjoyable. Landing is a lot easier than simulators make it seem, although I will note that my instructor was governing the throttle the first two times I tried it, and was always in control of the flaps. A cockpit for the mk2 fuselage parts would be pretty handy, as would some high-power RCS ports. And I do think a .625 jet engine and intake would go well with the Bonnie. Yeah, it's overkill on a tiny plane, but these are Kerbals we're talking about. Besides, they've gotta repurpose those old hair dryers somehow.

Could you make some 90 degree hinges? You've got some nice 180 degree ones, but sometimes a smaller range of motion comes in handy.

Ah, my bad. I was testing it from the launchpad without actually testing it during a landing (I'm still used to third person) and there was no indication that it would appear. Having RA on the takeoff assistant is more for redundancy than anything. Sometimes you attempt a takeoff and something goes wrong a few hundred meters off the ground and you wind up having to make an emergency landing. Thanks for the speedy response, by the way.

I've just recently started using RPM, and whilst I find this menu set up to be largely more useful than RPM's default setup, it would be nice if radar altitude was available in the landing and takeoff assistants. I can calculate it from terrain hight and my ships distance above sea level, but it'd me more convenient to just have the number there already. Other than that, I quite approve of this plugin. Good work!

I don't suppose there are plans to use the tweakables system to control angles in the VAB/SPH? I can understand there would be some significant difficulties with that, but still... Any plans?