Ruedii

I say the level 1 runway should be not as good as the other two, but still OK. It should be shorter and narrower as well, and it's overrun area and side areas should be bumpy. The lv 2 and 3 runways should have reduced rolling friction on the wheels compared to the Lv 1 runway and grass. If you can add materials logic for it, the pavement areas of KSC and the runway should have very low rolling friction, while the dirt and well groomed grass should have moderate rolling friction. The non-groomed grass everywhere on kerbin should have high rolling friction. If this logic isn't already sitting there from Unity unused, don't bother, it's not worth the time at this point. You can always add it later. The same should go with the level 2 runway if you can further modify it.

I'm not sure if I mentioned this, but this mod brings in it's parts too early making it balanced a bit too much on the easy side. It might be good to move a lot of the stuff down the tech tree further. Also, it's very easy to add a single tech node at the end of the tree to extend this purpose. While Community Tech Tree isn't required to do this, I recommend using the generally accepted node names they use for obvious reasons of inter-mod compatibility, since most mods do this.

Actually the texturing the outside is easier. You can use a reference set in the CFG to reference various regions of stock textures. I know it's possible. It's also possible to add ladders this way skipping out the PartTools, but it is more work, as you have to make the measurements yourself in a modeling program. One of the mod threads where someone added a door to one of the stock crew cabins using just a module manager cfg pach says how they did it easily.

Shouldn't the fuel tank version of the RoveMate have LOX and Battery (just less battery than the normal RoveMax)? Generally, I'd actually use a lot less fuel, because the primary use for this would be for fuel cell powered rovers.

Actually, I've seen mods that attach doors and ladders to existing parts. It's not actually too hard. Making the IVA will be difficult, but not impossible. Again, one can use the stock props and just recombine them in a new manner.

Pretty much switching out the textures and window arrangements on these parts so they don't look like regular crew cabins. No modeling necessary, just use Unity Part-Tools to re-select textures and shaders from the stock ones.

On my suggestion about Intersteller mesh switch, I'd like to note that this is probably the function this mod would benefit most from. This could drastically reduce part count, allow disabling of unnecessary features of the craft to save weight/cost and allow to select between IVA and Open Cockpit designs. (The IVA is created from a model of the standard equip open cockpit, of course.) The biggest feature toggles I want are the ones to toggle the installation of the active cooling and toggling the installation of "Heavy heat shielding" to trade off weight and heat protection when making deep space models and reentry safe models. Of course, some other people might want to be able to toggle things like integrated batteries and switch out fuel types.

A few things I noticed. First, the bulkhead attachment method is sloppy at best. It might be a good idea to find some sort of node based system that will work with them. Second, would you consider using interstellar mesh-switch for the nose intakes instead of having a separate part. Also using intersteller mesh-switch for other parts could reduce part count. Third the models are incredible, but the shader choice for glossiness and such needs work. You should be able to change it and tune it with the Unity parttools. Finally, could you create some stylized fuel tanks that go in the cargo bay?

OK, in that case I'd like to put a shout out. I don't think it needs modeling per-say. It needs mapping of exiting materials like several mods use. Still a little bit of model editing work in the Unity parttools, but no custom modeling per-say. The resulting files would just be cfgs that reference existing models in the stock assets.

Have you considered making versions of the capsule parts that are each reentry safe and not reentry safe (and/or radially attached conformal heat shields to make the parts re-entry safe without requiring the added weight.) The use of conformal heat shields could allow for upgrades to different types of heat shielding as the player advances in the tech tree. (Of course Abalator heat-shields will always be the most effective, but also non-reusable. Titanium-alloy on ceramic composite mounts is most cost-effective, but has a lower maximum capacity. Active cooling system would be a good top-tech method, along with active cryogenic cooling for handling more intense reentry.) You may be able to use the part upgrade function to improve base shell heat tolerance with tech nodes. (This provides advanced alloy shells for basic heat management without added weight.) Another feature to add is splash-down pads for water as well as balast systems for underwater use.

Yeah, also you probably should downscale the navball anyway, after you upscale everything else. There is an individual option for it. I think it glitches out if you set it above 200% (i.e. 2.0 scale in the settings.) For example you could set the scale of the UI to 400% (i.e. 4.0) and the scale of the Navball, and anything else that glitches above 200% to 50% (i.e. 0.5) since these two values are multipled, it would set all the items that don't glitch at 400% to 400% and the ones that do to 200%.

On engine change, is getting a custom build of Unity with a newer mono version and thus better GC also a no? I know Squad has looked into this and said it was too expensive. However, that was also before Microsoft changed the license on much of Mono and drastically lowered the price of the Non-Open-Source platform commercial version. This should change the situation here.

Heat shouldn't be too much of an issue. Yeah, it should generate heat. (It does burn). I'd have to look up the proper way to control the heat, though. Particle effects are a little trickier, but I can look into that. Basically this would allow this with only a simple part.

I find that starting at a 5-15 degree angle all the way back at the base helps a lot on reducing delta-v consumption. I can usually get up to 72-80km with between 2800 and 3000 DeltaV (As a note, I use a pure gravity turn and an angled launch with this method. I only accelerate to between 40-100m/s while maintaining angle. This creates 2-10 delta-v of losses.)

Well, if you aren't close to it, you probably won't notice lower resolution. You probably should go with 1080p instead. Most TVs have decent upscaling filters.

I personally like the idea of an incredibly low power engine, because it's the most realistic. Basically you are ejecting the fuel without burning or pushing it through a thrust-effective nozzle, hence it is in all behavior a rocket, just one with minimal thrust instead of maximum.

Yes, this is listed as a known-issue, upstream, wontfix, if I recall. Squad had determined that it would be too difficult to fix this, so presented a warning instead. As a note, you may just want to lower your resolution. If your monitor isn't 50 inches, you won't really notice that much difference. I usually recommend not going over 1080p with most games. That tends to be more than enough.

If you can't see the settings to adjust the UI you can use the config file. Edit settings.cfg in your favorite text editor. It's a standard JavaScript/ECMA-Script variable declaration format. You can also set values that would normally be out of range of the settings in there as well, if need be. You can also adjust the size of each class of UI item relative to the other ones. Personally I wish Unity and other programs (on all platforms) would obey the DPI cues from monitors and the OS. However, that's just wishful thinking and won't solve your system.

Any chance we could get the textures changed out so they don't identical to the stock part they are based on. I would recommend using a vertical line texture similar to the stock Science Lab, as well as flat black lines along the sides. Also, I'd recommend adding a ladder and hatch on one or both sides of the parts that don't have it. You should be able to find stock assets to do all this.

Could we get an animated canopy that slides open? That would be AWESOME! It should be designed to mate with the headrest part.

Oh, reread the post. In that case, you generally want at least two stages in your rocket designs. Not doing so wastes a lot of fuel hauling dead weight. Generally I use a standard 3 stage design with a deep gravity turn by using a launch angle of between 5 degrees and 15 degrees depending on launch TWR. (5 degree for 2.0-2.5, 10 degree for 2.5-3.0 and 15 degree for 3.0-3.5) I hold prograde for the launch starting at 50m/s to 100m/s ( First is the Booster stage, 2.5-3.5 TWR for 25 sec (often utilizing radially attached boosters) This gets the craft past the lower atmosphere as fast as possible. Second is the maintainer stage. This has 1.2-2.0 TWR for 1 minute 30 sec. This extends the apoapsis to 70km Third is the circularization stage. I usually use this combined with the orbital maneuver stage unless the craft is very heavy. This is especially so if the craft is designed to do long distance flights, and thus needs lots of fuel capacity in it's orbital maneuver stage and will be refueled. Sometimes I adjust the size of the maintainer stage to handle much of the circularization this reduces the need for refueling. For smaller craft you can do away with the second stage, and just have a single ascent stage.

First, there is no shame in using drop tanks on a spaceplane. It's a lot cheaper than discarding entire rockets. Second, a good way to boost your fuel efficiency is to reduce wing area, thus reducing drag in the atmosphere. This has the unfortunate effect of also increasing takeoff and landing speeds and decreases your ability to decelerate during reentry, so it has to be balanced. Also, try to have the minimum number of intakes you need, and select ones optimized for supersonic/hypersonic flight speeds. (If your engines can't run full power on takeoff, that's fine, considering how overpowered many space planes are. You may only want your first pair of engines on until you attain takeoff and sufficient speed to feed air to all the engines.) You can't compensate for the near-zero oxygen at high altitude with more intakes anymore, so fewer intakes may be better. Third, try to rapidly ascend and not exceed Mach 2.2 until you reach a good altitude, of 12Km to 18km. Then you can make your run up to hypersonic speeds at a slight incline and curve upward to a near suborbital flight path, before entering a gravity turn.

Well, since most Space Outlaw TV series are under totalitarian governments that consider unlicensed salvage to be piracy, I suspect salvage operations.

Is there way you could add a radial glass canopy for this (obviously small enough that you can still enter the seat when holding onto the side of the vessel.) That would be incredible. Second idea: a 0.65m variant and Mk2 variant. (MK2 varient is actually almost identical, but 0.65m variant will require substantial adjustment of the cockpit.)

Supersampling can also be used as a secondary antialiasing technique, in gameplay. It's also known as virtual resolution or various other names.