hoojiwana

Full release! Check out the new OP for the links and changelog and other pictures and cool stuff. There's a handy link in my signature for the lazy. Cool, hopefully I've done it right.

Sorry for taking so long with the final release, I've gotten a bit carried away with planning and research for what to do next. Today or tomorrow will be it though! Still very helpful! You reported the problem though, which is what's important. Cheers. EDIT: Also noticed the Sunrise didn't have the 5800 vISP its supposed to have, fixed that too. Done! On another note, what's the best way to distribute that MM config for Filter Extensions you posted a way back? I've not packed an MM config with anything before and wondered what was best practice.

I can't say anything regarding the Tantares scales with much authority, but AB Launchers are scaled to the stock Mk3 parts being used as Buran. Zenit and Proton are roughly the same diameter in real life (I think), so having those parts both line up to 2.5m in KSP can provide a decent baseline to work from, all derived from the stock Mk3 scale. Whether those scales end up being easy to use (and looking at curtquarquessos post above, not all of them will) is another matter to think about.

Those are both intentional, and if theres no more issues I reckon its time for a proper release. Thanks again Streetwind for everything! Sounds like you're using the old 12.1 version, but thanks for mentioning it anyway.

Thanks! Just like the small one, a large MP fuel cell would draw the exact same amount of mass over time as it's LFO equivalent, and would generate the same amount of EC. There would in fact be a minor disadvantage if you were using launched fuel in career since monopropellant is more expensive than LFO, but the difference wouldn't be bankrupting. The parts fit well enough in the stock ones, there's nothing that would fit into any of the CTT ones since CTT is intended to extend the stock tree. Everything in RLA Stockalike was always intended to slot into the stock tree. I've been thinking about doing one or two things specifically for CTT, but that would be entirely separate from this.

More Important: This is incompatible with any and all previous versions of RLA Stockalike and will break saves. Less Important: Folder changes mean you must delete any previous installs, you will need to delete PartDatabase.cfg in your KSP directory as well. If you didn't have any installs on KSP 1.0.x then ignore this. Big Changes Removed the 0.625m nosecone since it was redundant Tweaked the tech tree placement of many parts, particularly the early LFO engines and tanks Did a full pass on all flavour text descriptions, updating old ones and writing new ones for the new parts. Hopefully they make sense! Adjusted the ISP curves of all aerospikes and solid rockets Lots of fiddly adjustments in general I also added a little bit of info on what (if anything) the engines were based on, commented out in their configs What needs testing: Everything really, but special attention should be paid to: 1.25m linear aerospike balance Removed 0.625m nosecone Reorganised early tech tree placements Fixed 0.625m extra long fuel tank dry mass Tweaked existing flavour descriptions Added new flavour descriptions for those parts who didn't have one Updated emissive animation on the following engines: 1.25m solid upper, <0.625m MP, Resistojet, Arcjet, <0.625m LFO, 0.625m high thrust, 0.625m aerospike, 0.625m nuclear, 0.625m SRBs Removed "tinysrb" particle FX Added "ionfx" particle FX Tweaked "smallSRB" particle FX spawn location Tweaked "MPvac" particle FX spawn location Tweaked "MPmed" particle FX spawn location Tweaked "MPsmall" particle FX spawn location Tweaked 1.25m solid upper stage thrustVectorTransformName location Tweaked all 0.625m SRBs thrustVectorTransformName location Tweaked 2.5m monopropellant engine thrustVectorTransformName location Tweaked 1.25m monopropellant engine thrustVectorTransformName location Tweaked 0.625m monopropellant engine thrustVectorTransformName location Tweaked small radial monopropellant engine thrustVectorTransformName location Tweaked resistojet thrustVectorTransformName location Tweaked arcjet thrustVectorTransformName location Electrostatic ion now uses "ionfx" particle FX Tweaked EntryCost of many parts Tweaked all 0.625m SRBs ISP curves Tweaked 1.25m solid upper ISP curve Tweaked 1.25m linear aerospike ISP curve Tweaked 0.625m aerospike ISP curve Tweaked 2.5m MP aerospike ISP curve Decreased Tiny radial monopropellant tank cost from 100 to 50 Increased 0.625m long monopropellant tank cost from 390 to 400 Increased 1.25m long monopropellant tank cost from 950 to 1200 Decreased 1.25m solid upper stage mass from 0.4 to 0.25 Increased 1.25m solid upper stage ASL ISP from 110 to 135 Increased 1.25m solid upper stage capacity from 90 to 120 Decreased 1.25m solid upper stage cost from 220 to 180 Increased all 0.625m SRB ASL ISP from 155 to 166 Decreased 0.625m aerospike engine gimbal range from 2 to 1.5 Decreased 0.625m aerospike engine crash tolerance from 7 to 4 Decreased 1.25m linear aerospike gimbal range from 1 to 0.3 Increased 1.25m linear aerospike cost from 1250 to 3650 Decreased resistojet mass from 0.16 to 0.15 Increased resistojet vacuum ISP from 570 to 575 Decreased 0.625m monopropellant engine vacuum ISP from 335 to 330 Decreased small radial monopropellant engine vacuum ISP from 335 to 330 Decreased 2.5m monopropellant aerospike mass from 2.4 to 2.1 Increased 2.5m monpropellant aerospike cost from 1150 to 1950 Increased medium solar panel cost from 1000 to 1250 Increased tiny radial reaction wheel EC draw from 0.05 to 0.06 Nothing Sorry I've been absent the last few days! I try to avoid having parts overlap with stock too much, the exception being where stock does something that strongly contradicts what I'm doing, such as the 0.625m LFO parts tech tree placements and the stock 0.625m decoupler. I don't want to touch a thing that stock does since that just creates compatibility issues between mods that might expect a part to be in a certain place for balance reasons, stuff like that. The savvy mod user probably knows how to prune things they don't want to see or have taking up memory anyway so it's not a super huge concern. I was mistaken on that, too used to looking at things from a sandbox perspective. I've decreased the gimbal range but not removed it entirely, 0.3 isn't exactly a lot though. And the cost I thought was already a lot higher than it was, but I hadn't actually copied across the value from The Spreadsheet to the actual config file. Oops! You guys shouldn't be giving me more ideas for things to do, I have too many of my own already! When I've got 2.5m monopropellant engines and fuel tanks, running ISRU vessels on only MP is entirely viable. The Cormorant is especially good since it has enough thrust to get some big vessels off of the surfaces of most of the moons and planet. I think it may even be able to get something small off the surface of Eve now that I've given it an adjusted ISP curve for >1 atmospheres of pressure, though the lack of gimbal and low drag may present an aerodynamics problem.

Looking back at the slowly rotating final stage of a quick test rocket.

All done, and ArcFurnace beat you to the FS-L50 typo. Thanks! I've tweaked it a little bit (changed the text alignment) so it looks even better now. I have reconsidered doing a larger MP fuel cell "array" since I really dislike the way the stock LFO cell array scales compared to the small one. I don't think verniers are all that useful considering there's only two LFO engines with no gimbal, one of which is way earlier in the tree and you've unlocked other options by the time you get the verniers, and the other is a spaceplane optimised engine where other control authority tends to be more useful. I've never liked the way stock basically makes all the radial engines redundant out of fear of making inline engines redundant, so I just made mine the same. If people want to use an inline engine radially, they will find a way to do so, and if they want to use a radial engine "inline" they will find a way to do that too. No point trying to prevent them doing that. I've bumped most of those parts up a node now, they still start from middle sized though. I despise the part count limitation and the way the fuel tanks are used with it, it just needlessly punishes the player by making them waste time and effort in the VAB, shows off the stupid wobbly nature of rockets built that way, and conflicts with the mass and size limitations. Having more fine control over how much capacity you have is a better method I feel. Increased the EntryCost on those two, though not quite by how much you suggested. I had difficulty placing the MP tanks+engines due to how late the stock ones show up (and all in one node too) so had to nudge the longer tanks down early to match with the MP engines themselves, and I've said before that I want to avoid moving stock parts around. Bumped the first two you get up a bit, and since their tech nodes all got bumped up as well this should work out nicely. I really don't like the way the stock aerospike makes other stock parts redundant, which is partly why the Cutter may not seem quite as good despite it's placement in the tree, though I still went along with the stock scheme but the margin is an awful lot smaller. On spaceplanes that would use 1.25m parts, they're not going to have many nodes available to stick engines on, you would use the less efficient Cutter where you need more thrust on those few nodes. I'm no spaceplane expert though so I can't say where the sweet spot is, which is why that part needs more testing before I'm happy with it.

Yep that's exactly what it was! That tank should be 0.15 but it was 0.015. Thanks for checking them all! I'll go over the monoprop engines again, don't want to drastically change their balance scheme but they can clearly do with some tweaking. I did a bit of balancing a fair while ago, I think what I did was reduce all the masses a bit, and tweaked the ISP (since all the stock engines changed) but didn't look too closely at the results. And as for fuel tank density, check out the Oscar-B. Yep that was deliberate. The Puffin I never saw anyone actually use, at all, ever. Cutting it since it wasn't useful in that size range is no big deal really, and so far no one seems to mind. I'm not terribly surprised since having to account for a solid-rocket burn later in a launch doesn't seem like something many players would enjoy doing. The SMAC does suffer the same problem but at least it doesn't have to compete with quite so many engines. I'll go over it again, particularly the dry cost/mass and how much it contains, not exactly anything in stock KSP I can use as a guideline for those anyway. Yeah I went in a bit of a different direction with those three compared to the way the stock SRBs scale. The longer one is quite possibly the only viable one since it's thrust has scaled up linearly with the amount of fuel it has, rather than the way the 1.25m boosters do. The point of all the boosters really is to provide a bonus big of thrust at the start of a launch for cheap, and the Boostertron III I feel does that pretty well. The Spinnaker on a fuel tank is an awful lot more efficient, but it only has 37-40 thrust, that's about the same as the short Boostertron, and the long one has 3 times that for a lot less cost. I agree their ISPs can do with touching up, and if the short one isn't useful it's no problem to cut it. Yeah I was thinking the same thing when I put it in there, but went ahead and did it anyway to see if anyone else thought the same. I originally left that part in because I just didn't know where the stock one was. Turns out its way earlier than I expected it to be (since I find it's easier to expect stock to make no sense) but I slapped it in early in the tree to go with the small SRBs and Spinnaker, but if I'm re/moving them it can safely be chucked out. Not much of a RAM saving on that since it has always shared a texture with the 1.25->0.625 multi-adapters. I don't want to mess with the stock parts at all, and that decoupler has very little overhead anyway since it's just using bits of textures from other parts. I think I used the 0.625m radial stack extender (does anyone use these?) texture for it. The stock linear RCS is actually different now! It has 2 thrust, not the same mass as a 4-way block, and higher crash tolerance and maximum temperature. Mine is almost exactly 1/4 of the stock one since it's just a single nozzle version of it, so the difference between the two I think is actually viable now (it sure wasn't before 1.0). The micro one I'll move later in the tree with the other micro blocks. I look forward to Volume 3 of The Chronicles of Streetwind: A Book of Spreadsheets!

More Important: This is incompatible with any and all previous versions of RLA Stockalike and will break saves. Less Important: Folder changes mean you must delete any previous installs, you will need to delete PartDatabase.cfg in your KSP directory as well. If you didn't have any installs on KSP 1.0.x then ignore this. Big Changes Removed the 0.625m upper stage solid motor, it was never worth using compared to other options Added a small monopropellant fuel cell, same stats as the stock small one except it consumes the same mass of monopropellant instead of LFO Completely changed the monopropellant electric engine balance Assigned everything to the 1.0.x tech nodes Went through the particle FX, gave all engines the launch smoke module and gave the Caravel and Mighty their own unique FX What needs testing: Everything really, but special attention should be paid to: Monopropellant electric engine balance Probe core balance 0.625m NTR balance RCS heating 0.625m LFO engine heat 1.25m linear aerospike balance Removed 0.625m upperstage solid motor Added small monopropellant fuel cell Changed lfo_small_ntr folder to lf_small_ntr Placed all parts in the tech tree Fixed incorrect texture on the construction frames Fixed minor positioning error on grey IKOTET probe Fixed maximum_drag entry in fuel tanks configs Removed "tinyred" particle FX Removed "xenonsmall" particle FX Added "ntrsmall" particle FX Added "bleredtiny" particle FX Removed "xenon particle" texture Tweaked "rocketparticle" texture Tweaked "blueredsmall" particle FX spawn location Tweaked 1.25m linear aerospike thrustVectorTransformName location Tweaked 0.625m high thrust engine thrustVectorTransformName location Tweaked 0.625m vacuum (aerospike) engine thrustVectorTransformName location 0.625m vacuum (aerospike) engine now uses "blueredtiny" particle FX 0.625m nuclear engine now uses "ntrsmall" particle FX ModuleSurfaceFX (aka launch smoke) added to all applicable engines Removed 0.625m vacuum (aerospike) engine alternator Increased 0.625m monopropellant engine gimbal range from 1 to 2.5 Increased small radial monopropellant engine gimbal range from 1 to 2.5 Increased Electrostatic Ion thrust from 1 to 1.2 Decreased Electrostatic Ion EC/s from 8.74 to 8.1 Decreased Arcjet mass from 0.23 to 0.22 Increased Arcjet thrust from 1.4 to 4 Increased Arcjet vacuum ISP from 1050 to 1350 Decreased Arcjet ASL ISP from 150 to 100 Decreased Arcjet EC/s from 8.74 to 7.5 Decreased Resistojet mass form 0.21 to 0.16 Increased Resistojet thrust from 3.5 to 6.6 Decreased Resistojet vacuum ISP from 875 to 570 Decreased Resistojet ASL ISP from 250 to 100 Decreased Resistojet EC/s from 8.74 to 4.5 Aerospike ISP curves not aerospikeified Tiny radial torque wheel flavour name is incorrect Many descriptions missing or incorrect Nice thanks! Good to know. I have gone and removed its alternator though, and it still need a proper aerospike ISP curve, but that the basic stats are about right is great. Well they were all originally just used for RCS, and even now there's only one small engine that uses them for anything else. That's why I went with the very simplistic balance scheme of less mass, less thrust, vaguely the same ISP as vacuum LFO engines. Works out nicely in career especially since MP is expensive. The new resistojet is a bit of a bother though, in real use the resource usage is only a bit lower than the Cirrus (~0.30 to ~0.34), and to get that you have to slap on a lot of extra mass in both the engine and power generation. So the dV increase turns out to be fairly minor unless you go into crazy mass ratio territory and quite possibly even completely cancelled out when using the fuel cells to power it. I'm pretty sure the craft in the pic above would've been better off using a Cirrus because of the "small" monoprop tank. Arcjet seems fine.

If its going to be using a non-stock resource, why does it matter if it's in line with stock? Why does it matter if its in line with stock at all, its a mod, the idea is to do things stock hasn't already done, or to do them differently.

With no payload, lots of rockets can do that. The total size doesn't matter, the dry/wet mass ratio and efficiency of your engines does.

Stock LFO fuel cell and a new MP fuel cell, right now they have basically identical stats with the only difference being the resource they draw from. I've not made the big one yet, it's going to look different since I don't like the way the stock big cell visually looks like 6 small ones, has the output of 12 and mass of about 5 of them. And there is such a thing as hydrazine fuel cells, so this isn't too crazy! That's fairly disconcerting. What parts specifically were/are giving this issue (if it's still present in TV3)? Cool, I'll give those numbers a go. Thanks so much Streetwind! Nice little plane! I didn't really consider how useful the Caravel would be at sea level with its fairly high ASL ISP (250), but it seems like even with only 4 and a bit thrust you still found a way. What do you think of the particle FX on it? Too big?

More Important: This is incompatible with any and all previous versions of RLA Stockalike and will break saves. Less Important: Folder changes mean you must delete any previous installs, you will need to delete PartDatabase.cfg in your KSP directory as well. If you didn't have any installs on KSP 1.0.x then ignore this. I've not changed the electric engines or Mighty nuclear engine following on discussion in the last couple of days since those changes require a lot more consideration. I thought it best to get the things I have done to you guys to play with now rather than later. Big Changes Added a new 0.625m SRB in between the two existing ones, let me know how useful you find it (and the smallest one). Added a new tiny probe-size linear RCS block and slightly tweaked the balance of those parts (slightly lower mass but slightly lower vISP). Lots of tweaking to the Cutter to improve its viability on SSTOs, if you're a spaceplane aficionado please give this engine a try! Gave the 2.5m monoprop aerospike a more defined role of a more powerful vacuum engine (higher mass + thrust over the other 2.5m monoprop engine) for those bigger vehicles that murder your overall TWR. It still lacks a gimbal though so hopefully that balances it out. What needs testing: Everything really, but special attention should be paid to: SRB balance (finetuning!) Probe core balance 0.625m NTR balance RCS heating 0.625m LFO engine heat 1.25m linear aerospike balance Added new tiny linear RCS Added new 0.625m medium length SRB Converted almost all remaining textures to DDS Fixed 0.625m nosecone heat settings Improved bulkheadProfiles of both structural frames (thanks Kerbas_ad_astra) Changed <0.625m monopropellant engine fuel flow mode (thanks Overlocker) Changed Electrostatic Ion engine fuel flow mode to match the stock ion Improved Resistojet emissive Tweaked some flavour names for better sorting in the default editor Decreased 0.625m nosecone mass from 0.01 to 0.007 Increased 0.625m nosecone maxTemp from 2000 to 2200 Decreased existing probe RCS block mass from 0.0125 to 0.012 Decreased existing probe RCS block vacuum ISP from 240 to 230 Increased 0.625m upperstage solid motor thrust from 8 to 8.5 Increased 0.625m upperstage solid motor vacuum ISP from 215 to 235 Increased 0.625m upperstage solid motor capacity from 15 to 20 Increased 0.625m short SRB ASL ISP from 145 to 155 Increased 0.625m short SRB vacuum ISP from 170 to 185 Increased 0.625m long SRB mass from 0.56 to 0.6 Increased 0.625m long SRB thrust from 110 to 120 Increased 0.625m long SRB capacity from 224 to 240 Increased <0.625m LFO engine vacuum ISP from 300 to 310 Decreased 0.625m vacuum (aerospike) engine vacuum ISP from 335 to 330 Decreased 1.25m linear aerospike mass from 1.6 to 1.5 Increased 1.25m linear aerospike thrust from 230 to 245 Decreased 1.25m linear aerospike ASL ISP from 285 to 260 Increased 1.25m linear aerospike vacuum ISP from 315 to 325 Increased 1.25m linear aerospike gimbal range from 0.5 to 1 Increased 2.5m monopropellant aerospike mass from 1.8 to 2.4 Increased 2.5m monopropellant aerospike thrust from 290 to 360 Increased 2.5m monopropellant aerospike vacuum ISP from 335 to 342 Tech tree placements not updated No engine has ModuleSurfaceFX added 0.625m nuclear engine FX is incorrect Some descriptions missing Is that for the old 12.1 version (from KerbalStuff or maybe CKAN) or the current test versions? That should be fixed on the test version, so give that a try (it is majorly, save-breakingly incompatible with the old version though so beware). If I was going to get rid of either of them I'd prefer to kill the Arcjet since I just like the Resistojet more. Best case is finding a way to keep both of them around though, but I'm not worried about trimming the fat if need be. A ~550-600 vISP version of the resistojet might be pretty neat, there's barely anything in that ISP range. I did really like the idea of having it be the lower power option though, and was considering adding a monopropellant fuel cell of some sort to help provide another power option where you didn't have to cart along a whole other tank for LFO. I've not done any tech tree placements whatsover yet since I'm concentrating on getting everythings gameplay purpose and balance locked down before placing parts according to that balance. But yeah the electrothermal engines will be placed earlier in the tree, probably in that node you mentioned. Fun fact, first time I wrote this reply it was much longer until I realised it was just another way of saying what you said.

What if the day is just 1 flat second shorter than we think it is? That fits the ~42 second difference with 426 days, doesn't it? So we have a backwards leap second every day.

What does the "Warp to morning" button on the space center do then?

Weren't they added with the Jet engines, that have the same problem? At least for the aerospike you can fit some of the parts inside it, like the combustion chamber is actually in a ring around the rim and the turbopump is probably squashed inside the spike itself somehow.

Go ahead and test them out, they're set at 0.5 torque right now, I do wonder if that's the right amount. Yeah the old design is gone for good. I didn't think it looked too great and what I wanted to change it to wasn't suitable for use as a landing engine, so the aerospike showed up instead. Of all the engines, Mist and Fog are probably the only ones that would be fine using the "draw from everywhere" method that RCS uses, I'll change it back to that for the next version. Here's the post I was waiting for! Firstly, death to the Dawn. The buff Squad made to that has been such an enormous headache that I kinda of gave up on balancing the electric engines before now, and is the reason why the Eclipse and Umbra lost their Xenon modes, they just could not compete on any level. People didn't use it because it's a pain in the ass to fly anything with low TWR, and people always build huge spacecraft and try to use engines totally unsuited for things of that size. Increasing the thrust and decreasing the power draw just made the Ant the least useful one, it just moved the problem elsewhere since people still build bigger and bigger craft. Anyway. The Umbra has always been in a bit of a weird spot, between the Dawn and the Eclipse and so kind of iffy in its purpose. Right now it's the high ISP option for monoprop vessels but it may not be enough as your analysis shows. Removing it seems like the better option since buffing it to such high levels isn't something I'm keen on doing. It's ISP is already higher than a comparative hydrazine one (in real life), and of course its thrust is but it has to be to be competitive. Maybe an absurdly good hydrogen arcjet could hit those numbers but there isn't really a hydrogen analogue in game (LF doesn't really count). I'll look at trying the low-power approach for the Eclipse as well. And as for the Mighty, because of the lack of pure LF tanks (and lack of tank fuel switch) that thing is going to be a nightmare to set up right. Need more thoughts on that subject, and on heating. Would people try to use the Mighty for smaller probes? Or would it be used on larger probes and using 1.25m and bigger LF tanks? What about clustering it? If people want to use it primarily for bigger vehicles leaving the other engines for small probes then that's great, it can have more thrust+mass for that. In other news I may also cut the Puffin (0.625m solid upper stage) since it can't really compete with the other options in that size with the exception of cost. The 1.25m solid upper is okay since it ends up with marginally higher dV than similar mass and thrust of tank+Terrier. (And similar mass monoprop+Nimbus has a bit more dV than both, but less thrust and costs more.)

Some snaps from very low Moho orbit.

Agreed that more thoughts on the SRBs are needed. I deliberately made the boosters very strong so they're actually useful as radial TWR boosters on bigger rockets (even up to 2.5m if you use a lot of them). And the upperstage ones aren't terribly common to see people using since they're hard to use. And yes the Caravel (little aerospike) is the new 0.625m vacuum engine. The idea being that aerospikes are space saving since you can truncate the nozzle, making it fit under the smallest landing legs. Also ties nicely into Rockomax developing the Cutter (linear aerospike), some progression like that in the tech tree is pretty neat I think. So all the main 0.625m LFO engines are now all Rockomax, just like 2.5m, going to give the Caravel and Spinnaker numbers like the 48-7S so they all appear together in the editor list. Thanks! A fair few tweaks to things like particle FX and balance and it'll be there. Cheers. Lots of juicy feedback! One thing I noticed is that you tweaked the monoprop tank to remove fuel from it, which has the side effect of increasing it's dry mass ratio, which has a negative impact on dV (above and beyond that of simply lowering the fuel). If you do a direct comparison of Resistojet to Arcjet using full tanks the Arcjet should always come out ahead in terms of dV. The two may still need some tweaks but I don't think they'll be major ones. The design behind the four 0.625m high efficiency engines (LV-Nc, Arcjet, Resistojet and Ion) puts them all in different niches. The LV-Nc gets the benefit of the best dry mass ratio tanks and has the highest thrust, the Resistojet is the higher thrust monoprop option, the Arcjet is the higher efficiency monoprop option, and the Ion is the super efficient Xenon option (and leads into the fun things Near Future adds, and is designed around that). Directly comparing Xenon tanks to anything else is also a bad idea since they have such poor dry mass ratios (nearly half their wet mass is tank mass). You've no idea how glad I am to hear that! Yeah they are supposed to get hot, they have a fair bit more thrust than they used to, and are supposed to be good for both 0.625m first stages and be good enough clustered for bigger rockets. Yes, I have no intention of changing the way the monoprop engines draw their propellant because the alternative (draining through decouplers) is still worse. Tried to make an aircraft that used decouplers at all in 1.0? Fuel lines don't work on radial tanks either so you can't get around the problem that way. Thanks for the config! And I'll do that for the structural frames as well.

For that version of RLA Stockalike the engines are all still categorised under the old "Propulsion" tab which was split into Engine and FuelTank in 0.90 (I think). With the regular install this was fine since the game automatically sorted them correctly, but with Stockalike RF it seems it changes what type of part the game sees them as, and it puts them all in the tanks tab. This is fixed in the new version of RLA, but for now making sure the category is set to Engine in an MM config should fix that. This is probably the same with AIES since that's not been updated in a while.

Before we got radiators, you had to think about the design of your rocket if you wanted to use the LV-N. You had to build around the heat the engine put out by adding your own heat-sinks or making an adequately large rocket that the spread of heat and meant the engine itself wouldn't explode. There was more design gameplay, now it's just a matter of adding a part with no thought or clever intent. EDIT: And there was an element of "will-it-won't-it" gameplay in flight, the same thing many people say they like about not having all the information about dV available to them. "Will my flight have enough fuel to return from the Mun?" "Will my engine overheat on this 15 minute burn?". It's the same thing, but seems to be being phased out from the game by the devs.

Made a little mini-Soyuz type rocket while testing out some updated parts I made.

Yep that's what I'm using too. I experimented a lot when I was setting up AB Launchers for KSP 1.0 and noticed every gradient turned into bands of colour, shadows were all purple and all detail was annihilated when I used anything that converted textures after they had been through Unity. The flags are probably due to mipmap settings, though I still leave mine as PNGs anyway since they're small enough.

More Important: This is incompatible with any and all previous versions of RLA Stockalike and will break saves. Less Important: Folder changes mean you must delete any previous installs, you will need to delete PartDatabase.cfg in your KSP directory as well. If you didn't have any installs on KSP 1.0.x then ignore this. Big Changes Added all the other parts previewed so far, removed the Xenon modes on the Arcjet and Resistojet since they were very hard to balance effectively, and did lots of fiddling around. What needs testing: Everything really, but special attention should be paid to: SRB balance (should be much better now) Probe core balance Electric engine balance (big changes here) 0.625m NTR balance RCS heating 0.625m LFO engine heat Added 5 revamped 0.625m LFO tanks Added revamped 0.625m high thrust engine Added revamped 0.625m vacuum engine Added new <0.625m LFO engine Added new tiny radial reaction wheel Changed RCS folder to Control Fixed 0.625m nuclear engine scale (thanks Initar) Split old "Propulsion" category into Engine and FuelTank Set IKOTET thermal mass to the default Fixed OKTO gold probe flavour name (thanks TicTacToe!) Added balancing info to probe descriptions Named more engines (STEADLER MP engines were named in TV1) Lowered TET probe SAS to level 0 (this is basic stability assist only) Increased 0.625m nuclear engine mass from 0.25 to 0.32 Increased 0.625m nuclear engine heat production from 230 to 275 Removed Arcjet Xenon+EC mode (leaving only Monopropellant+EC) Increased Arcjet mass from 0.2 to 0.23 Decreased Arcjet thrust from 1.5 to 1.4 Increased Arcjet vacuum ISP from 850 to 1050 Removed Resistojet Xenon+EC mode (leaving only Monopropellant+EC) Decreased Resistojet mass from 0.25 to 0.21 Increased Resistojet thrust from 3 to 3.5 Increased Resistojet vacuum ISP from 650 to 875 Decreased Electrostatic Ion mass from 0.25 to 0.2 Decreased Electrostatic Ion vacuum ISP from 6300 to 5700 Decreased 0.625m short SRB thrust from 52 to 40 Decreased 0.625m long SRB thrust from 130 to 110 Decreased 0.625m upperstage solid motor from 20 to 8 Not all textures converted to DDS Tech tree placements not updated No engine has ModuleSurfaceFX added Decoupler drag is incorrect 0.625m nuclear engine FX is incorrect Some descriptions missing 0.625m nosecone heat config is incorrect It's on the to do list (also known as Known Issues). That's what ModuleSurfaceFX is. Thanks for the reminder though! While that probecore is shiny and gold, it isn't one of mine. Thanks for the other feedback though! The little monoprop engines are intended for how you're using them, someone suggested the radial version to use exactly that way. Yep, the new parts I'm adding (or touched up textures) have so far all been DDS, and the FX folder is mostly converted as well. The particle the monopropellant engines use however always turns purple when I convert it due to compression, so I'll have to look into fiddling with that. All the other left over MBMs will be converted soon enough, I won't do them in one go with a batch method because the converters I tried all severely degraded texture quality. I barely looked at the new SRB numbers, so thanks for going over them. I've decreased the thrust on all of them but one by varying levels, they all burn a bit longer now. Still needs some tweaking so give them another try. The LV-Nc (now called Mighty!) was incorrectly scaled since I didn't tell the game to not scale it up. Fixed now!