hoojiwana

It's not a Tweakscale config, it's just a config for a new part. You can pick it up at the end of this post.

See that's a better complaint since it's actually valid. The problem isn't the actual text in the OP, it's the way the forum handles the preview tooltip. Take a look at the BBcode for the OP (by quoting it, don't actually repost it!) and you'll see why the forum might be getting confused. I'll try some alternative layouts out, thanks for the heads up! EDIT: Did a quick swap of the imgur album and text in the first section of the OP, seems to have fixed it!

You guys want those probes parts don't you! Once AB Launchers has a full release, the plan is to tweak the Stockalike Monopropellant balance, and then to get back to the probe parts. Very nice! When the OP gets updated I'll drop a link to this in there. The OP does both of these already. Try this config. Just drop it in the "mp_m_vac" folder in Stockalike. I scaled up the thrust, mass and costs as well, the FX doesn't scale by itself so looks a bit small. Let me know how it goes!

That's basically how my own testing went! Neat isn't it? Surprised me how well that works with just 2 Sepratrons per stack and the largest radial decoupler (more on this below). Thanks for trying things out. On number 1, the smoke from the Cyclone cluster is partially fixable, but there will be only a single smoke source that doesn't gimbal and is almost certainly too small compared to the diameter of the part. There's a stock bug with the way the game spawns smoke FX, so it's a little out of my control. On number 2, a slanted tank type thing isn't really on the cards right now, but IIRC KW Rocketry does have that part if you wanted it. Got any pics of your Mir-2 Launch? I want to see how ridiculous it looks! In my testing the hydraulic decoupler and two or three struts was just fine for holding the 2.5m boosters to the 5m core, as well as decoupling them. If you're not already, I strongly recommend using the bugfix plugins, helps immensely with the decouplers. For the Sepratrons, the intention is to include an MM config to switch the stock Sepratron to have no thrust exhaust damage, so you can angle them towards your core tank without them exploding it. I've been using a straight up config edit in testing (which I don't recommend) and it has made building so much easier, really hoping a change like this makes it into 1.0.

I'm loving the use of different colours in the Gemini parts.

Yep! Appreciate it. Not just yet, this first version is just the basic implementation of the parts, which is why there are no descriptions and the Agency config is placeholder. Once the parts have been sorted out properly, and the MM config to tweak a few other things is done, then things will be a little more stable for someone to have a crack at making a decent set of RO configs. Personally I'm interested in seeing how well a scaled up LH2/LOX Energia core works! Big parts for big payloads! If you want truly big rockets though have a little look at the beasts people make for RSS.

Beta release is here! Known issues: No part descriptions Agency config and flag is placeholder No smoke on 5m engine cluster

I'm with you here, it seems rather unnecessary since the engine itself is entirely unique in stock KSP. It's not like the LV-T30/45 where the model and stats are extremely similar, there is only one xenon/electric engine. With ION it was just that, an ion engine, that's already how everyone describes it. If anything this is just going to cause confusion between people calling it the ion and the Dawn. Seems to me like just renaming it to get knowing nods and winks from those in the know, funnily enough just like the OP of this thread.

Throttle Controlled Avionics sounds like it may be of interest to you.

Today I made a plane.

That's such a cute little vehicle! Sticking it in the RLA screenshot folder thing because that's a great use of the engine there, sits snugly on that adapter.

Here's some testing of the 5m parts and some mock-ups of the boosters! Pic 1: First attempt, didn't have decoupler fix installed so separation was disastrous. The engines on the boosters in all these screenshots are using the Mainsail model but the Hurricane (RD-170) stats. Pic 2: Separation went better with the small exception of the Sepratrons burning through my tank and engines. So the MM config that will be included may also be changing those to have no thrust damage. Pic 3: Made a quick Vulkan to see how the engine stats fare on larger symmetrical rockets Pic 4: Booster separation, with no thrust damage Sepratrons (makes them so much easier to use), and much nicer balance on the engines. Pic 5: This tiny bit of fuel left over is because the engine on full throttle can't actually consume it due to rounding errors. I'm not sure on the numbers that FASA uses for tank dry mass or it's engine balancing, so I can't say how good those numbers are. Given much rough testing with the parts in game now it's looking like the RD-0120 (Cyclone in ABL) will be fairly close in stats to the Mainsail. Slightly less thrust, mass and ISP, but makes up for it in gimbal range. The difference in mass between LH2 and stock LiquidFuel is rather huge, so tank mass is much higher than you might think. Currently the 3 tanks required to closely approximate the Energia core in (relative) length is over 440 tons. All subject to change of course!

Remember that stock Energia would have a very very heavy core compared to the real one. Real Energia and derivatives use a liquid hydrogen core which is much less dense than stock fuels, so the same size for Energia core in stock has a significantly higher mass. This is one of the main balance problems for AB Launchers. If you guys have any suggestions on what route to take I'd love to hear them over in that thread.

I fail to see why a second post is required for this. A great example of one post with multiple mods in is Near Future. From what I've seen most topics don't use two posts at all. Those that do are for those that are really generally rather huge, like some of the realism mods. Note how incredibly large the 3rd post there is. I very much doubt your mod is going to be as expansive as something over a year old, with as much interdependence and spin-offs as Real Fuels has.

Why do you even need a second post?

That's really neat!

Generally speaking you don't want to be spraying propellant at the thing you're trying to dock with, so lots of spacecraft have their RCS designed to be able to manoeuvre without firing directly in certain directions. This doesn't matter the slightest in KSP. At least that's part of the reason.

Like this.

Presumably it's coming in one of those post-release updates. Interesting that you link that devblog actually, since one of the answers even says they'll have multiple Beta updates before 1.0: Emphasis mine. So plans changed an awful lot since October it seems.

And those who are thinking "No" are worried that those questions won't be adequately answered. There is a lot to get done for this update, and splitting it in two would likely improve the chances of everything working out without needing to do a post-1.0 update that mars what should be the best moment in the dev cycle of the game.

May be too early to say since we haven't gotten many details on things, but for me the biggest thing to look forward to is the rebalancing. Hopefully it means an end to the reign of terror the 48-7S has had over the smaller rocket sizes. The fact I have a mod that has multiple parts in the same size category is totally coincidental.

For me this is the key thing, since experimentals testing doesn't always catch everything and in general the main release of an update to the wider audience leads to more things being found and spotted. Asking their small pool of testers to check both the new features, the new balance, AND fixes for existing bugs may be a bit too much. It may be a bit too much for the developers themselves to keep up with.

They could say they were out of Early Access and released, getting a lot of free publicity (and sales) from doing that.

Certainly is, but it's asking a question that ultimately none of us can answer without a crystal ball to see how expansive this next update really is, a point that sal_vager already made. This community only wants the best for KSP, and (right now at least) it seems like the community feels like this is rushing to Gold without any real Beta updates.