hoojiwana

Go check out the Tantares thread! EDIT: There's a new development thread over here regarding the Energia parts since discussion of it doesn't really fit this or the Tantares thread. Yes the monopropellant tanks need a little work, the crash tolerance is just an oversight while the capacity is a change I need to make since the stock ones were increased in 0.90. The 48-7S was deliberately ignored when I balanced the 0.625m engines, since it's far too good of an engine to compare against. The idea was to make a set of balanced engines someone could use rather than using the 48-7S for everything since it's too good not to. The RV-50 was originally a quarter of the mass of the stock one (still is actually) but since it was originally released Squad made all the RCS blocks massless. I left the part in since why not? The texture space was still there on the shared RCS texture. And thankyou for the praise about the look! I work hard to try to get things to fit and it always tickles me when I see people wondering a mystery part got added to stock and it turns out it was one of mine and they didn't realise.

I'm just going to leave this here:

Image deleted

Nope, maybe this will give you a clue: (WIP) Possibly, having "Radial" and "Inline" might work. Still not enough information there to notify the player that "Radial" mode can drain through decouplers and such though, and still wouldn't work with the Bi-Modal engines. Given that 0.91 supposedly will have some balance fixes I could ask Ted about a few solutions. Either making the radial tanks have surface attachment, or changing Monopropellant flow mode to STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH and having RCS blocks override that with STAGE_PRIORITY_FLOW. The latter solution is better but not super friendly to part mods that would have to update their RCS blocks. But given the possibility for balance changes anyway that might not be too bad of a thing.

It would make sense for it to be like that (since that's exactly how mass is worked out, dry mass is defined, resource mass is added on), but it's implemented the nonsensical way. Wet cost is defined and then resource cost is deducted when you tweak the amount down. So if you add LFO to an engine you have to increase the defined cost as well.

This is a better way of approaching things rather than the contest angle that might be offputting.

Probably the least exciting part out of the selection that I'm working on, a 3.75m nosecone. Palette possibly not final since I've not actually compared it to the NASA parts to see if it fits. Anyone figured out what I'm up to yet? Flow modes aren't displayed in the editor or flight (I think) so when switching it wouldn't be apparent what was happening. And it wouldn't work with the Resistojet and Arcjet that are already both bi-modal.

As others have pointed out, the problem isn't that the LV-1 isn't good enough, it's that the 48-7S is too good, making the other options less attractive.

Known behaviour, see the OP for more information on it. Interesting! I hadn't noticed that. Seems the R-10 (0.625m tank) got an increase to 80 MP as well. These changes actually do put the inline tanks around roughly the same dry mass ratio (~11-13%), so the RLA tanks and engines will need to be tweaked to fit. Thanks for pointing it out! The changes won't be made until the parts I'm currently working on are done, and you'll all get more news about that very soon. Good to know. At the same time I update the MP parts I'll update the OP to include your config for those that want it. I should look into CTT as well to see if I can place the RLA parts a little better and make up a MM if applicable for that too! Engine FX can be a little fiddly with Unity transforms and stuff, the Ion only has one called thrustTransform that's placed right on the grill, if that's any help.

I've got a crazy, overly large spreadsheet with all sorts of useful and useless statistics for every stock and some mod engines, tanks and other applicable parts. First I figure something rough out in there then apply those ingame. Then for the monoprop and SRBs I compare dV of similar mass craft (using LFO) and fine tune things to get the dV to roughly the same place (give or take for weaknesses of each engine). For instance, the MP engines are generally only very slightly ahead of LFO in dV for comparable mass since they have less TWR. The PAMs are both very capable little boosters since you've gotta deal with them once they're lit. For the MP engines specifically, the different sizes are a bit whacky since the stock MP tanks have no consistency in their volumes or dry masses. If you're going to make up an MM config for Tantares, look into the tank masses and volumes as well. Shoot Beale a PM about it or post in the Tantares thread if you get something nice together.

That is really neat! Is it folded in with the NF MM config or just something you've been tinkering with? I decided against doing one myself since I could never get the look of the exhaust right, it always either looked too solid or too big or too much like normal engine trails for my liking, so I went without. Maybe the NF ones might suit better than my attempts though! That's fantastic! I've added that to the OP album. Still waiting for someone to do an STS-5 style mission now that Mk3 has been redone, if you're up to trying that out as well. Good lord you've managed to fit an entire space program onto one rocket. Yep, the monopropellant engines are a bit out there in stats to provide a viable alternative to using LFO engines since the usual reason for trying them isn't possible in (stock) KSP. That said the big CTCE engines are actually based on a real concept using a real (though not flown) monopropellant. First things first, make sure you've installed correctly. Once you've verified you have, post a screenshot of the VAB showing the problem if it persists after a reinstall.

Pricing took a little while to figure out, but it's great to hear it's working out for you! Some of the engines run a little hot (like the Spinnaker) so if you cluster them on something you might get some heat problems. Could you post a quick screenshot of the problem? What other mods are you running?

If you want just the gimbal with no nozzle movement, simply add the gimbal module to your config. The gimbal module itself rotates the thrustTransform object in your Unity hierarchy. Anything that is a child of the thrustTransform will also rotate along with it, including particle FX and sub-models. So to get your nozzles working, have them as separate models, and put each one as a child of each thrustTransform. And the Unity fbx importer loves to scale them really small, to fix that select your fbx file in Unity and set the scale to 1: You may also be able to change the scale at which your modelling program exports at as well.

The KerbalStuff page has now been updated with the new version, so go grab it! 11D122

Virtualgenius is the closest guess so far. 12.1 is out with a few very minor fixes, apparently the LV-Nc never had the correct spelling in it's manufacturer! Everything else seems okay in 0.90 from my brief look, if you guys spot any glaring issues PM me or better yet post here about it. Thanks! KerbalStuff link back up soon!

Part packs okay here? EDIT: RLA Stockalike 12.1 with minor KSP 0.90 fixes

Yep, single nozzle works just fine, multinozzle does strange things. I did try out 4 single nozzles on one part but that didn't work either. ModuleRCSFX does fix this, but I'm not keen on introducing dependencies for a part pack. As soon as the functionality is in stock, Xenon/EC RCS will be added to Stockalike. Though not Ion ones though! This could be a nice project for someone not familiar with modding to try out, though it's not as simple as just changing the config. You'd need to add a rotated transform to the part in Unity, though it might be possible for someone to use MODEL{} to put an Ion model on one of the stock RCS parts. Give it a go! Absolutely, config edits are simple enough anyone can play around and make what they wish but using the same models for multiple parts could get confusing. Plus new art assets always introduce a nice bit of variety as well as new pretty things for people to look at. I absolutely love looking through people's screenshots and seeing my parts on their vessels, and I'm sure every other part maker is the same! There's even one screenshot I like in the album in the OP, anything I particularly like will end up in there. Probe parts is still on the backburner (and my mouse broke this week) but I have been very busy working on something I'm sure you guys will absolutely love, here's part of it:

It's likely you're experiencing the bug with the tracker KerbalStuff uses, it can pick up extreme numbers of phantom hits and has done this for a couple months now. If you go through the download stats for popular mods you'll likely see the same thing there, I know Stockalike has been hit by it. It's a little annoying since it renders the graph rather unusable due to the scaling down of all the real stats to fit in the giant bump from phantom hits. EDIT: Source

Certainly food for thought, though I'm no nearer to deciding on what to do! Bipropellant RCS in stock is still not yet possible without a plugin, and Stockalike is just a part pack afterall. When the stock RCS module works with multi-nozzle bipropellant, then I'll add Xenon/EC RCS which I've wanted to do since I think before Stockalike even existed.

Ah I forgot that KerbalStuff did that. I suppose those subscribed over on KS wouldn't need to worry about whatever topics I set up over here. I think AVC is pretty much just a plugin thing, though there is that new CKAN project that might be more applicable for part packs. The googleabilty (is that a word?) of each pack might be a pretty big deal but since those hits seem to end up going to KerbalStuff anyway it might not be such an issue for forum topics. Thanks for the input! Yeah I'm not going to be bundling anything with Stockalike and instead aiming for more focused packs with very defined goals. That way people can better pick and choose what they want, which I feel is extremely important given the major issues with memory the game has.

Bad planning! Awful terrible planning with Probe Parts meant I lost direction with it and then things involving Warlords in some place called Draenor happened. I'm sorting out where to head with Probe Parts and tidying up those parts I've got made already, but there still won't be a release of it until I'm satisfied it can go out as a proper standalone part pack with a nice selection of parts. For when it is eventually ready to go, do people want it available in its own thread or placed in here alongside Stockalike? I'm not entirely sure what's better for going through feedback, but for you users looking for updates separate topics may be the way to go. What do you guys think? A thread per pack, or all in one location? How do you all go about checking for updates on mods? I'm glad you like my parts! Fun fact, those angled RCS were the very first part made for Stockalike. The version out now has been retextured a few times but is still essentially the exact same model from nearly two years ago now. Those couple of parts should still function totally fine in sandbox, even in conjunction with the current Stockalike release though the folders may get a little confusing. If you mean update them for career, that's not something I'm doing, and if you mean updating the models, that's something I might do eventually sometime. The 0.625m tanks, Kingfisher, LV-T5 and LV-Nc are currently the oldest assets in the pack, in terms of being updated or revised, and I'd like to redo them to bring them up to par with the rest. The alternative models would be redone then if ever, but it's not high on my priorities right now since those parts are just about good enough. Clairas parts are fantastic and part of the reason I got into doing what I do in the first place. It's a shame she stopped working on the game but as I understand it she put her education first and that's fair enough! I do love how much the small parts throw off a persons sense of scale in game. Hopefully this'll continue with future releases! I'm incredibly pleased with how well the SRB FX came out, the particle I made looks so fitting for rough burning solid fuel. Check out Taurus HCV and Tantares if you haven't already and want some more! I'm not sold on those particular designs but I've seen the interest in the idea. Honestly it surprises me what with KW rocketry being around, and to some extent Novapunch. Not entirely sure why those are doing that, they've got the exact same maximum temperature as other engines, and I think other engines burn up. Any other DR users want to clue me in on why this might be happening? They're in there since that's where the stock ones are, but I do agree with you they might be better earlier. Depending on how the editor changes work out in 0.90 I might not need to fix this at all, hopefully I'll be able to remove the parts entirely, though that'll mean some texture fiddling. You can use the small tanks to make clusters with a bit of rotating since those are surface attachable in the mean time though. Noted! Hopefully that doesn't cause a problem since I haven't noticed CTCE contracts not being generated.

Can you set up an online survey for these questions? It would make collating the answers an awful lot easier on you rather than having to manually go through the thread and do it.

That's not what you said elsewhere.

Why wasn't this mentioned in the dev notes? Seems like something people would've liked to know about.

That's the thing that is bothering me the most, they're trying to add in bonuses and stuff that would fit far better as part of other features. It comes across like they're shoehorning in reasons for something to exist because they haven't gotten to implementing the actual reason they're adding the system. Which is surprising to me since they've not bothered to do that before, they've just added a framework and left it as is until they get around to looking at it again. Bonus thrust and ISP and what-have-you is so much better suited to improving parts as you progress on the tech tree, with current stats being the "best" version.