hoojiwana

I was asking for it with my post though. No need, it's a neat thing for people to read, and to see another way KSP is much simplified from real life.

You are using the SmokeScreen plugin as well? The expansion effects need that to work.

Not to mention how engine efficiency changes in atmosphere is incorrect.

It's two things, some engines now having ModuleEngineFX where Hotrockets expects ModuleEngine, and a number of part names changed from Stockalike 0.9.4 to v10. All the LFO engines except the Cutter still use stock FX, as do the SRBs, and the ion doesn't have any FX at all.

Balancing aerospikes against other engines is basically impossible. The unique selling point is supposed to be the higher aISP than other engines, but if you do that then it just makes the other engines not worth using on lower stages because they will always be worse. So you have to tread a really fine line between rendering everything else useless for lower stages, and making the aerospike itself useless because it doesn't fill it's own niche. I like to think the Cutter is balanced by having it only really be the best choice below 10km altitude on Kerbin, meaning you'll want to drop them for a T30/T45 if your stage goes above that. Obviously for asparagus staging it is always going to be very good because you drop outer stages quickly, but that's an issue that stems from asparagus staging itself being very good. I did consider just cutting the Cutter completely before v10 was released because of how hard to balance it is, as well as it not really filling any niche. But I didn't see that going down very well. The stock aerospike I feel is in a bit of a weird place. The combination of high aISP and low TWR doesn't lead to many times it's a worthwhile option, and it's ridiculous cost and questionable placement in the tech tree just confuses the matter even more.

That's something you'd have to sort out in the Hotrockets thread, I know Stockalike needs a new config for that anyway. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, it's to make the engines competitive with similar LFO options. The high TWR, low ISP option just seems a bit weird to me, especially with huge engines like the Albatross and Cormorant. Given that the engines already have fairly good TWRs anything higher would make them insane for things like Mun landings. I get that in real life monopropellant engines are simpler and so tend to have better TWRs than bipropellants engines, but with things like infinite engine restarts and 100% throttle control on the bipropellant engines in KSP, I had to think up some other way of making monopropellant engines interesting to use rather than being a gimmick like the stock one seems to be. Yeah it's a little experimental. Right now it's basically only useful under roughly 10km altitude, since above that the T45/T30 come out with slightly higher ISP. Because of that low atmosphere niche, I decided to try giving it a weird downside in that it cannot be throttled or shut down. As Nori mentioned, it does have a gimbal and it's even described in the VAB tooltip, and seeing as it's an LFO engine you can use however much fuel you want with it. I'm happy to alter it to be a more normal engine if that's what people want, I'm pretty sure there's a bug with the FX and throttle limiting I need to look at anyway and I might reduce the aISP a tiny bit. If you want to make it a normal engine yourself just change throttleLocked and allowShutdown, and set the minimum thrust to whatever you like, all the FX are currently set up to allow 0-100% throttling and engine restarts. EDIT: In fact I've gone ahead and done it anyway, v11.1 links in the OP.

Here we go, the return of the Cutter! Overhauled the terribly optimised old model and redid the texture to suit, and it's a fair bit different in terms of stats. Should be a little more interesting to use now, let me know what you think of the balance and the drawbacks to it. Also bumped up the stats on the MPR-1 and added a radial version of it just for passinglurker. Sorry it took so long for what turned out to be just the two parts, I got hooked on watching Stargate last week, and fiddling with the Cutter FX took a little longer than I expected. If you're wondering what happened to those probe parts I mentioned before, well, wait and see! I bumped down the MPR-1 and the Linear RCS one node in the tree, pretty much solely for use with manned pods that early on. I think some part of Realism Overhaul hasn't yet updated it's MM configs for Stockalike since 0.9.4, so that's probably why you're having issues.

A plushy version of the little octopus from the science update trailer. Why? Soyuz has soft toys as acceleration indicators. Might be a bit difficult to get it to float around, but you've got the coffee mug already!

It's your part, do what you like!

The maximum usage is for atmospheric ISP, and since the FTmN has the lower aISP, it chugs down more LFO in atmosphere than the Omnimax.

I've got some ideas that shouldn't be hard to make, and would use the existing texture as well. Don't want to out-right change the engine over to being a radial since I don't want to break peoples craft again after the changes in v10, so it'll end up being the MP version of the LV-1/LV-1R. If you could that would be great. The electric engines, right from their first implementation last year, have always made me worry about how balanced they are. Given the changes to the PB-ION and how two of my engines are bi-modal this concerns me now more than ever. The main thing that concerns me is the pre-requisite for having monopropellant tanks as well as sufficient power generation, and you can get to Advanced Electrics without getting any monopropellant tanks at all. As Streetwind mentions though you might be able to see where to find some of them. Given both sides of Streetwinds arguments however I'm still more inclined to leave the bi-modals in the Ion node since that's the same tier as the other high efficiency options. The Resistojet I could see being bumped down as that's less of a jump in d/v than the Arcjet for monopropellant craft, but I'm not sure about it. There's definitely a spot for medium panels, I might look into that.

Fixed (kind of) all the issues mentioned, thanks guys. Also increased the amount of Xenon in the Xenon tank to better match its size. That's not a bug, that's due to the "resourceFlowMode = STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH" definition in the engine config, it's the same with all the MP engines as well. MonoPropellant and XenonGas use STAGE_PRIORITY_FLOW, and that can cause a little bit of weirdness with draining from tanks. Unfortunately STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH doesn't play well with radial tanks, and you can't remedy this with a fuel line because you can't attach them to the radial tanks. So it's a choice between two non-ideal options. As a workaround just use a stackable tank. It turns out that having sea-level ISP in the configs caused the engines to increase the amount of EC they were using, rather than just Xenon or Monopropellant, while in atmosphere. My fault really, I should've checked rather than just expecting the massless resource to not increase. To fix this I just removed the sea-level definition for ISP in the config, and now the engines should display correct values in the VAB as the maximum, with the negative side effect of being efficient in atmosphere. Thanks! Should be fixed in v10.4. Yeah it's a bit of an odd engine really. If I made an MPR-1R it might just end up being the linear RCS unit again though! I'll have a look into it for v11. The issue is that the only pre-requisite generator in the node I'm looking at is the static one. The deployable panels are in a parallel tech node and as such the player could end up not having proper power generation. I totally agree with you on people overdoing the Precision Engineering node, which is largely why I moved so many parts out of it. The stock tech tree is just really unfriendly for anything but the most generic of mod parts. I'm not sure about adding parts that other mods (notably Near Future) already have lots of. I was even unsure about adding the long Xenon tank, but I didn't want people having to either bloat their part counts with stock tanks or use another mod if they wanted to pootle about with the Resistojet for extended periods of time.

The MPR-1 is pretty bad right now (useless even), and that's in the same "tier" as the MPR-5 used to be. When I do another update and change the MPR-1 that would probably be pretty good, albeit at a lower thrust. No problem! Explanations for the balance will hopefully get people to question those decisions, point out possible flaws in implementation of those decisions, and cause everything to be made better overall. Since they both use Monopropellant I considered placing them a bit earlier, as they don't need to be in the same node as the Xenon tanks to function, unlike the Ions. As you said though, there isn't much in the way of power generation so I decided against it. It looks a lot better! How much power does it chug down? The folder structure for alternative models is entirely standalone, you should be able to drop the whole thing in just like it was a separate mod and it'll work. If you drop in only the modelalt.mu files that won't work.

v10.3 is out, including alterations for part costs and tech tree placements. I've updated the part costs of the 0.625m parts. All the engines have gone up in price except for the SRBs that got slightly cheaper. The LFO tanks have been changed to better fit the 23% rule, and the 2.5m MP engines have been fiddled with. The electric ones are just kinda popped around the stock Ion, no idea if they're really the right cost especially as two of them are bimodal. Thanks man, that crazy hexagon array you're working on looks fantastic. I've moved things around a little, see what you think of it now. Due to the odd way in which KSP remembers what you've unlocked, you may need to start another new save to have a proper look. Luckily the alterations are all in the first few tiers so you won't have to go too far. Thanks for rehosting a mirror for people to use in my absence! Yeah the FL-R200 was a typo, annoying really as I was kinda using that part to help balance the big MP engines. With the FL-R200 at the proper dry mass I had to decrease the mass on both the Cormorant and the Albatross, and bumped up the ISP of the Albatross as well to keep it near where it used to be. Unfortunately it's not as good as it was, I didn't want to push the numbers too high. That effect uses something from SmokeScreen, so you'll have to figure something out over in the HotRockets thread to get that working with v10. Looks great in game, is it supposed to be a chunkier resistojet? My rules for making the three electric engines was to match the two-shade yellow paint with the heavy border and icon, and to have a blue and red wire. The stock implementation of a monopropellant engine is beyond underwhelming (no surprise there though), so I went a different direction. They're meant to compete with LFO engines, but you cannot do a straight ISP comparison to the LFO engines due to differences in wet/dry tank masses. The design intent was to create a family of engines that are basically on-par with the low-TWR/high ISP LFO engines, but with their own pros and cons. Generally speaking the MP engines are all pretty bad in atmosphere and are fairly lengthy, but with the MP tanks come out at lower mass (and thrust) for around the same d/v. The player has to make a decision if he wants to stick to more versatile, slightly higher TWR LFO engines or go with the overall lighter MP engines that are more focused on OMS-style duties. Turns out sticking an MPR-5 or a couple of -5R's on a capsule as back-up thrusters is pretty useful with the command-pod MP stores as well!

I'm not sure if those rules apply since KerbalStuff is non-commercial, and even if it was anyone already signed up could be considered "existing customers".

There's a download for older part packs in the OP, you can use the Radial Jet from there if you wish. I'm going to wait and see if Squad fixes the RCS module to work properly with bipropellant multi-nozzle set ups before I resign myself to releasing just a single resistojet RCS part. I've always disregarded using a messy solution like the generator option, it makes a total mess of part tooltips and is in general just inelegant. If it turns out that those parts are too cheap (and they probably are) then there will be an update. I'll give it another day or two for more feedback to roll in first, to get an idea of what people are expecting their costs to actually be. Are the tech tree placements okay? I might move the smaller 0.625m tanks down to Survival with the LV-T5.

I didn't feel it was up to scratch with the rest of the parts, and I didn't have much interest in updating it. I'm not super into the aircraft side of KSP, and there's other stockalike aircraft part packs by people who are more interested in those things. Thanks for pointing out the tank names! Changing them over as I type this. The Cutter will return in v11 with better art and hopefully better stats. On the part names, I think most of them are the same as in 0.9.4, but due to things like new models being longer and those few parts that have different names, I gave a blanket warning about installing and craft files. Better to have people be prepared beforehand than to install and find the game removes their favourite space station or something. Well v11 might have something probe-core related, I'll see if my idea works before committing to saying it's guaranteed! You do have to be careful with those electric engines, they will utterly eat your Xenon/Monopropellant if you use them in denser atmospheres. And yes the RV-50 is now basically the same as the Linear 7, the reasoning is that when the parts used to have mass the linear was the same as the RCS block, and that didn't seem right. Since the balancing scheme now has RCS blocks being massless for some silly reason, the RV-50 is mostly just a cosmetic item. While on this train of thought, there's a number of parts that may seem flat out better or worse than stock parts because the stock parts just plain aren't balanced. So in order to have parts that have interesting variation in order to make the player think about what he wants to do, I had to ignore some stock parts when balancing. The best example of this is the 48-7S, which is an utterly ridiculous engine that is so overpowered as to be boring, there is no thought put into deciding if you want it or not. The costs for 0.625m parts are one of those things I'm having to figure out by myself, the stock price scheme for those seems a little strange. For example; the LV-1 costs more than the 48-7S, and the small LFO tanks cost a crazy amount for how little they contain. The Vernor LFO RCS seems a bit strange to me, a bit useless. And the RCS module doesn't seem to handle multiple resources for multi-nozzle RCS blocks properly, so even if I wanted to add them it wouldn't work! Good point on the name of the ION2, it'll be changed right about nowish.

You're quite right it seems! My KSP install doesn't have those duplicates but the folder I was using as a go-between seemed to have older folder structure still in it. Links updated!

Still alive and well! Hopefully they're interesting new toys. I hope you like them. You installed over an older version of Stockalike then. The warnings about v10 being incompatible are for exactly this reason.

Having the same issue as the helpful person a few posts back. When attempting to upload after everything is filled in, the site hangs for a few seconds and then returns me to a blank form, with no error messages. Filled in the required forms, added an imgur album in the markdown section, provided a fairly small (724x454 jpg) header image, and included at first a .rar, then a .zip instead. EDIT: Giving it another go with a public profile. Received this when attempting .rar; With a .zip it eventually went through and sent me to the publishing page.

Parts to fill stock niches, including 0.625m LFO engines and tanks, a full suite of monopropellant engines ranging from 2.5m to sub-0.625m, brand new 0.625m SRBs, 0.625m high efficiency engines using LiquidFuel, Monopropellant or Xenon, a number of new probe cores with varied specialisations and shapes, more ways to produce electricity, a range of RCS blocks both large and small, and structural parts to glue it all together with. [snip] Changelog Thanks A big thankyou to @ArcFurnace, @blowfish, @BobCat, @Borklund, @CardBoardBoxProcessor, @Devo, @EndlessWaves, @Initar, @Kerbas_ad_astra, @MaverickSawyer, @NecroBones, @Overlocker, @passinglurker, @PDCWolf, @Plur303, @Porkjet, @Streetwind, @Tiberion and @TicTacToe! for forum posts, general assistance, testing and balance suggestions. Without you all this pack wouldn't be as good as it is. Previous Versions If you want access to any older versions for whatever reason, some older versions are available below. If you're looking for any other version, leave me a note and I'll hook you up. License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Thanks! Here's another piece of progress. As for why I've not shown the Arcjet in Sketchfab, I'm not entirely happy with it's texture. Compared to the Ion and Resistojet it's a bit lacklustre, and the UV mapping could be better.

More indepth preview, the specular is not quite the same as it'll end up in KSP due to shader differences, and the in game texture will be compressed. All those hexagons on the grid look a bit odd because each one was placed by hand! Not terribly sure what the stats for this will end up being, possibly double stock Ion thrust at the cost of double the power requirement. The replacement Resistojet model is underway, and its a lot longer than the existing one, mainly due to a more accurate nozzle shape. Not that any of these are terribly realistic purely down to how big they are, if any realistic configs were made for these I'd argue for shrinking them to at least 50% of their current size.

5-way port couldn't fit into the existing block, and I'm not fond of making a new unit just for that, the linear version I can easily add though. Testing some particles on the Arcjet, this in particular is made of two emitters, and a total of 400-600 particles. I have no idea if that's a good amount at all, if anyone has any input regarding particle count and performance I'd greatly welcome it. And this is a rough model of the new Ion engine, going a slightly different direction to the stock Hall effect thruster.

Is that license appropriate given that this seems mostly derived from stock models and textures?