Zorg

Thanks! Just downloaded it and had a look in the sandbox. Very nice! should fit in nicely with my early days of space exploration roleplay with BDB parts in my current playthrough. Erm do you also have the same issue where the delta V stats dont show up in KER/MJ unless you launch it? I can take it up with the mod developer but its not a big deal ig uess. Could be something to do with the way the engine is configured...

Awesome! Is that a Dyna-soar? And where can I get it from?

Cool, I'll have a little time later in the coming week so I'll test it a bit and submit the pull request by the weekend.

My thoughts on BDB 1) 300 parts! Who needs that kind of part bloat, no thank you! 2) Well might as well take a look, some of those interstage parts look interesting, I like some detail at the tail end of my upper stages rather than just an engine attached to a tank... I can select the parts I like and prune the rest 3) This stuff is awesome! I'm keeping all of it! So yeah despite the initial intimidation I am really enjoying these parts and recreating some early missions in my new 1.4.3 science playthrough. Also it took me a little while to realise that the MSM storage bays seem to have been designed with Universal Storage in mind. I was initially quite disappointed at how small the bays were and there was no way I was going to use the ugly stock 2.5m service bay for my life support needs but the MSM with UniversalStorage is pure happiness for extended exploration! (Universal Storage seems more geared towards TAC LS than USI, it has supplies storage for USI but no recycler. Couple of supply packs is honestly enough for the Kane in the Kerbin system but I patched in a recycler anyway using an existing model for TAC for extended mission time.) Speaking of USI life support and patches, I saw in the USI compatibility patch for BDB that the Hokulani Airlock is supposed to have enough life support to support 6 kerbals for 7 months. However, while the patch adds 1470 units of supplies to the airlock, the life support recycler module is missing. Moreover, to stretch 1470 units of supplies for 7 months you would need 89% recycler efficiency which seems a bit OP for USI life support. I personally patched it to add a 75% recycler module which stretches the 1470 supplies to 90 days for 6 kerbals as per the mission profile in the "Manuel II". I saw in this thread that these patches are community maintained so I can submit this as a pull request on Github if the dev wishes. Never used github but I guess I should be able to figure it out. One hold up though, I kept electricity consumption at 1.5 ec/s as a placeholder. I'm kind new to all this and not sure about what a good balance should be. The USI large recycler gobbles electricity at 18 ec/s for 79% efficiency for 3 kerbals... K&K Planetary bases has a 70% recycler at 5.25 ec/s for 3 Kerbals. We need 75% for 6 I was thinking around 10 ec/s to keep things reasonable, the lab itself will also consume 12 ec/s when doing science conversion but the solar panels can handle an additional 10 ec/s. However you might need a lot more batteries for the dark side of your orbit... perhaps someone more experienced in the modding scene and life support could weigh in?

Thanks! Looks useful, there really does seem to be a mod for everything!

Hi Nhawks17, would you mind letting me know which parameters do what in this snippet? The values in the example you gave worked out of the box for my SSME problem but I would like to adjust some other engines. Experimenting blind without knowing what they do can be quite tedious given the game's load times. Cheers

Thanks a lot! This worked a treat! I do have SpaceY so I just took a close look at that config. Unfortunately unlike SpaceY which has unique identifiers within its 2 engine modules, the two engines I'm grappling with don't seem to have any identifiers that I can find for the 2 modules (which run simultaneously). Perhaps I could add an engine Identifier? In any case shortly before I saw your post I got things working by directly editing the part config file and setting the appropriate plume for powerEffectName in each of the modules. I then adjusted parameters in the separate patch file. Its hacky and not best practice but since its just for my personal use and not for distribution its fine I guess. Anyway thanks a lot for your help once again!

Hi! First of all thank you to the developers of this mod, RealPlume is definitely among my favourites of the 80 plus mods I've installed. I was however wondering if someone could help me out with some customization snags I've run into. I recently downloaded the RealEnginesPack by Alcentar; he has recently ceased development of the mod but the models are really beautiful so I decided to modify the pack for a highly customized personal install. I ran into 2 issues when trying to make realplume configs and was wondering if someone could help me out. Bear in mind that I have no prior coding skills and this the first time I'm trying to mess with configs.. 1) For the SSME model, I wanted to use the Cryogenic-UpperLower-375 plume but the volume was very low. I think that the volume is scaled based on the plume size scaling factor after seeing this in the prefab configs and the particular sound effect associated with that plume isnt very loud to begin with. In this case I had to scale it down to 0.5 I tried a few different things but so far have not been able to modify the volume. Is there a way to change the volume to my liking on an engine by engine basis? The Github wiki says use :FOR[zzRealPlume] - Adjust the EFFECTS nodes and engine sounds here. So I tried this config (and several other bumbling variations after looking at other config files etc...) but it makes the plume disappear and doesn't solve the volume issue. I guess its not super critical as using a 1.25m scale cryogenic plume doesnt cause volume issues as its not downscaled. But still I like the colours of the 3.75m plume for the SSME.. 2) The second issue is more troublesome and I fear there may not be a simple solution. The pack contains models for the RD107 and RD108. Both of these models have additional smaller thrusters for attitude control. I am able to apply a realplume to the actual engines but that makes the thruster plumes disappear. I am attaching the part config file below in case someone is keen to have a look. I am not sure how to target the thrusters with a seperate plume such as one of the vernier thruster ones. Alternatively I would be fine with the original plume for the thrusters and realplume for the main engine if thats easier. The thrusters firing separately on the RD108 model without realplume (main engines are deactivated so we can see clearly) RD107 model with succesful realplume config for the main engines. Thrusters fire without plume now... Link to the part config file for the RD108 model https://www.dropbox.com/s/j8oknvf6y54pa1l/RD108.cfg?dl=0 Thanks in advance for anyone who can help out! Edit: The below successfully applies the vernier plume to the thrusters (thrustTransform2) but makes the main engine plumes disappear (although the sliders are still there in the smokescreen config tool.

This looks incredible! I would very much second the notion to have this model be included at least as an option in the upcoming update. In the meantime I have bumbled my way into somehow successfully installing this by replacing squads model directly because I have no idea how to do it with a config.

Great mod! I just downloaded procedural parts for the first time and honestly while some of the simpler standard textures are nice, a lot of the colour ones aren't very nice looking. These new textures are a fantastic addition. I especially like the orange and green ones.

Thanks! I'm playing with about 70 mods so I'm not in a rush, best to be cautious. But good to know I can when I feel ready.

Hi Galileo! Thanks a lot for making this mod, first time I'm playing with a planet pack and I'm really enjoying it. I would just like to ask a clarification about your above comment... are you saying: a) Simply warning against auto updates when playing with a planet pack and to wait until kopernicus and OPM are updated to the current version. I can continue using my existing 1.4.2 save file with KSP 1.4.3 once Kopernicus and OPM are updated to 1.4.3 OR b) recommending to never update the game at all for a given save when playing with a planet pack. That is to say I should stick with the current 1.4.2 versions of KSP, Kopernicus and OPM for my existing 1.4.2 saves even after the 2 mods are updated to 1.4.3. Only update the game and planet mods with a brand new, fresh save file. Cheers

Alright I'm not going to post every time I find something cool to do with a Cryo engine but at the end of my earlier lengthy missive, I had one burning question: finding an economical use for a Mars engine. Since then I did use a Mars as an upper stage for a 200T vehicle but it left me unsatisfied as I what I really wanted deep down was to use it as a launch stage. Was I being unreasonable? Looking for a use case that did not exist by demanding it be cheap? I didn't even used to care so much about cost but this self imposed challenge kind of took hold of me. Today I came across some very old "cheap and cheerful" challenge threads for simple expendable launch vehicles and saw some designs that used a single central Rhino sustainer core that gets all the way to orbit with (big bundles of!) stock kickback SRB side boosters. So that inspired me and I eventually came up with this: 1x Mars engine on single core stage with 5m tanks, 31.7T of LH2 and 149T of Oxidiser. 2x S109 heavy lift SRB at 58.5% Thrust 2x SpaceY S217 Super Heavy SRB at 46% thrust Payload to 75km circular orbit of 145T (I count the fairing cost and weight as payload as it makes picking my launch sub-assemblies easier.) Cost 155,388 cr | Cost per ton to LKO 1,068.7 cr/T This is the lowest I've ever gotten my launch costs for a non reusable design! I'm sure it can be optimized further by someone more skilled at rocket building than me. I'm also not great at tuning ascent profiles and so just used the mechjeb standard ascent settings with corrective steering turned on as a repeatable standard. I'm not saying that LFO launchers or hybrid launchers might not be even cheaper. But I am immensely satisfied with what I achieved with the Mars engine. This design not super delta V efficient as you suffer some gravity losses when the boosters are ejected. TWR on the core is just below 1 when the S217s separate but it increases fast enough to get you to orbit. But I optimized for cost, not delta V efficiency. Also someone who doesn't want to use SpaceY boosters or similar can always use a number of stock Kickbacks. I didn't try that but I did try a pair of "advanced boosters" instead of SpaceY SRBs: A pair of Twin Boars with a single additional Rockomax jumbo orange tank. This came out slightly more expensive (100cr/t more that the 4 spaceY SRBs config but still very reasonable). This is all turning out very SLS So yeah the Mars engine... luxury engine for when you're willing to splash the cash for maximum performance? Yes definitely. But its also a dirt cheap launch engine if you optimise right for a big payload. CryoEngines mod in general? I think its superbly balanced in all respects and you can usually find a good use for all 6 engines even while being a bit frugal (though you may have to work for it!). Thanks for putting up with my ramblings! Time to go do some missions instead of milling around in the VAB. Images in spoiler

Thanks! Indeed I first downloaded this mod the day you released the latest update. I do have NFLV but I m getting through my current play through rather slowly due to high mission density, only on day 250 or so. But unlocking that node for exotic fuel storage and the big 7.5m tanks is next on my science goals.

I didnt mention the Chelyabinsk earlier as my post rather unintentionally became a wall of text. But yes it does seem like super Terrier and it wasn't hard finding lots of uses for it. I do like your lander! Nice solution with the landing legs . I might try a Chelyabinsk lander, I often use terriers for landers. I've actually found a use for Mars as well as an upper stage for a 200T lifter (With SpaceY MultiMoa LFO lower stage) since I wrote my earlier post. Now to find a 200t payload lol. Perhaps a fuel depot or something...

Hi guys new to the forum here. First let me say thank you to Nertea for making this mod as well as all of his other stuff. Always loved his mods but for some reason I never downloaded CryoEngines until a few days ago in my new 1.4 game after having been away from the game for a while. Like many others I found the engines to be a bit hard to get a grip with initially. I've skimmed through most of this thread looking for advice and I think I've got a handle on some principles. The most obvious benefit seems to be on large upper stages where you get substantial weight savings thus resulting in savings in the lower LFO stage. This has proved quite effective on a couple of existing large launchers meant to insert interplanetary payloads into LKO and I even got some substantial cost savings. Where things got challenging for me was trying to use Cryo engines for launch stages. I'll write a little bit of what I've learned, but I would really appreciate any further input or challenges to incorrect assumptions. The Volcano, Odin and Mars all have lower TWR than their LFO counterparts and you also need to burn them longer to take full advantage of the ISP gains? This means using SRBs and often 2 pairs of SRBs with differing thrust levels to manage TWR and extend the SRB burn time such that by the time they are expended the center core will have at least 1.5 TWR on its own. The need to fine tune thrust with SRBs moved me to finally get the Space Y Launch Vehicles mod which adds a variety of well balanced SRBs that fill in some gaps and offer options above the kickback without having to build ridiculous bundles. IMO the Space Y SRBs synergizes very well with CryoEngines. The end result is something like this with 6 volcanos in the lower stage and 4 SpaceY R10s with staggered thrust. It gets 30T to LKO and is actually cost competitive with similar simple LFO launchers. Ok I don't go crazy optimizing for cost, I like good looking simple expendable launchers without insane stacks of asparagus...etc that still get reasonable cost per ton. I dont mind paying a little bit extra just for the cool factor (pun intended) Given that the objective of the rocket is to expend itself by LKO where the payloads own propulsion will take it to its (interplanetary) destination, the second stage kicks in around 25km with the apoapsis still within the atmosphere. I found the vacuum engines underpowered for this kind of use so I ended up using 2 more Volcanos. Is this whats meant by a "sustainer". Its a term I've seen throughout this thread. Still getting stuff into low orbit is not the best use of cryogenics in real life. You want to use the ISp of the upper stage to carry that low orbit payload to higher orbits and further destination. So I decided to try to build something which can deliver a nice payload to the Mun/Minmus low orbit using the second stage. This evolution of the earlier rocket cuts down the main engines to 5 Volcanos but uses 4 (staggered) kickbacks for boost. The center core is expends just as it establishes Apoapsis and the upper stage takes over for circularization and carries a 22T payload to Minmus with some headroom for say rendezvous. This time a single Tunguska powers the upper stage with much lower stage TWR but much higher ISP. The cost per ton to destination is actually lower than my older mid size moon rocket but perhaps its because I'm designing more carefully? This mod forces you to pay closer attention to all of your performance figures for a given mission profile which is why its got me so engaged! At this point I'm enjoying these engines tremendously but I've come to the realisation that I;m struggling to find a use for the big and amazing looking Odin. Anytime I need more thrust its more economical by a fairly large margin to throw more Volcanos at the problem. My 30T to the moons and 65T to LKO launchers use 8 and 9 Volcanos in the first stage respectively with various configurations of SpaceY SRBs and another Tunguska for the moon rocket upper stage and 4 volcanos for the 65T lifter upper stage. The bigger engine does end up with slightly more Delta V due to the better engine TWR once you manage to equilise thrust levels for a stage but I'm struggling to find a combination once SRBs have been accounted for where a single Odin comes out ahead. I think this is what I'll be working on the next couple of days and I would really love to hear about or see your Odin and Mars based designs and how to solve this optimisation problem. Of course all that isn't to say I haven't found any use whatsoever for the Odin... I think we've all been disappointed by the Mastodon from Making history. This tribute to the legendary F1 under performs the mainsail in every respect except a slight TWR gain for vastly unjustified higher cost. Meanwhile the mainsail doesnt fit into the Saturn V 5 meter base due to the wide engine mount. I actually used a 5 meter engine plate to attach five Mainsails, then used the move tool to nudge the mainsails outwards but they are both still too bunched up in the centre to look good and the top of the plate is already clipping slightly into the shrouds. This was my 150T to LKO lifter that has already been improved by a cryo upper stage. But now enter the Odin. With Nertea's switchable mount, the Odin looks glorious on the Saturn V base. The thrust requirement for the 150T payload also means this was way beyond what clusters of Volcanos can solve. The final design uses 5 Odins assisted by 2 thrust reduced long burning SpaceY S115 heavy SRB boosters with a single Yucatan for the upper stage. The way the staging worked out the 2nd stage kicks in at around 35-40km, with a TWR of 0.8 a single Yucatan has enough thrust to act as a sustainer and to circularise. Its a vacuum optimised engine but at 35km it has nearly full thrust. I'm glad I found a use for the Yucatan. This rocket turned out very slightly more expensive than the 5 mainsails with Yucatan upper stage combo, but the 100 cr per ton premium is worth paying for the cool factor and lack of clipping as far as I'm concerned. The extra 15,000 cr is a small fraction of the total launch cost once the cost of a 150t payload plus launcher is factored in. So in conclusion I guess what I've learned is 1) great for upper stages with LFO lower stage 2) Be more attentive to design parameters when building full stack cryo launchers especially TWR and when staging occurs. 3) Burn your engines for longer where possible 4) SRBs are very important and you usually need 2 pairs with differing thrust limits (and therefore burn times). 5) The need for large tankage is considered a downside. But I love the roomier fairings of big rockets even for lighter payloads, sometimes you just need volume for odd designs. The rocket being bigger for a given payload is a plus for me as I hate the look of bulbous fairings that are vastly wider than the core. 6) You can indeed design full cryogenic launchers (with SRBs) that are in the same ballpark cost-wise as LFO launchers. 7) I now refuse to use the Wolfhound on sheer principle Questions 1) What are the economical uses for single or dual configuration Odins and Mars based launchers. I've yet to build a Mars based rocket. How best to optimise for single large engines vs clusters of smaller engines? Is Mars a luxury cost no object engine? 2) Does asparagus staging work? I think not given the lower TWR and need to burn longer.. the Centre core ends up with too little TWR when the asparagus boosters are expended as the Kerbal fuel pumps are so efficient! My Delta IV heavy (ish) clone was hugely expensive for what it was. Well at least that's accurate... Hope this post wasn't too long and looking forward to what you guys have to say about your launchers. I've become unreasonably obsessed with building full cryo launchers