[WIP][1.8.x] SSTULabs - Low Part Count Solutions (Orbiters, Landers, Lifters) - Dev Thread [11-18-18]

[blowfish]

Also, another quick note about heat.

http://i.imgur.com/5DiZlvb.png

I'm no rocket scientists(Professionally anyways) but the gases are cooling down as they're shot out of the engine bell/nozzle. So shouldn't the engine get that sweet sweet red hot glow around in the green circle rather than the red one? The little bottle neck is what gets hottest in real life, as the gasses are closest to their hottest.

Some neat reference I found~

http://www.nimr.org/systems/rockets/971651fs1.jpg

Your reference looks right, but I'm not sure you're interpreting it correctly. The brightest glow on that reference is at the top of the nozzle extension. Everything above that has a bunch of liquid hydrogen (becoming gaseous*) between the inner and outer nozzle walls, so it's unlikely to glow as much, if at all.

* Assuming it's not already above the critical pressure, in which case there's no phase transition.

[VenomousRequiem]

Your reference looks right, but I'm not sure you're interpreting it correctly. The brightest glow on that reference is at the top of the nozzle extension. Everything above that has a bunch of liquid hydrogen (becoming gaseous*) between the inner and outer nozzle walls, so it's unlikely to glow as much, if at all.

* Assuming it's not already above the critical pressure, in which case there's no phase transition.

I barely know what you just said to me as I'm half asleep, but this is KSP so I assumed there wasn't going to be anything fancy; Forgive my misinformation I suppose. I'm not the smartest girl in the world by any means.

[blowfish]

I barely know what you just said to me as I'm half asleep, but this is KSP so I assumed there wasn't going to be anything fancy; Forgive my misinformation I suppose. I'm not the smartest girl in the world by any means.

Maybe I can explain it better. Do you see where the struts attach to the nozzle? Above that, the engine is actively cooled by liquid hydrogen, so it's not likely to glow. Below that, it's passively cooled, so, as the picture shows, it will glow, with brightness decreasing as you get toward the end of the nozzle.

[falken]

I'm liking the looks of these sep-motor decouplers. Is there any chance we'll see an angled one so we can have the beautiful shuttle sep?

[Shadowmage]

Well, Shadow, and anyone else who's interested:

http://i.imgur.com/GdKeRTc.png

The joints on the new decouplers are a little wonky... but other than that they look fine. I hope soon you finish textures and everything so everyone else can get this neat little doodad!

Also, another quick note about heat.

http://i.imgur.com/5DiZlvb.png

I'm no rocket scientists(Professionally anyways) but the gases are cooling down as they're shot out of the engine bell/nozzle. So shouldn't the engine get that sweet sweet red hot glow around in the green circle rather than the red one? The little bottle neck is what gets hottest in real life, as the gasses are closest to their hottest.

Some neat reference I found~

http://www.nimr.org/systems/rockets/971651fs1.jpg

Decoupler -- looks like you have a bit of a strange setup on that one. Should only need 1 decoupler per booster, and you can right-click on the decoupler for all sorts of options (such as setting the vertical spacing between the mounts). And the rings should be wrapped around the booster (unless that is all just the joint weirdness you are talking about).

Joints -- they still use stock joint mechanics, so you will likely still need struts with large payloads. Nothing that I can (reasonably) do about it. KJR is generally the solution to joint wobbliness. However, I did set them to some pretty extreme breaking force/torque values, so they may noodle around a bit more than most other parts / not break very easily.

Emissives: Sadly, the resources that I have found regarding how engine bells glow are,.... non-existent. The image you have provided above is about the only one I've ever come across, and each engine will have its own hot-spot areas due to differences in how they are engineered (such as some having fully cooled nozzles, others ablative, others purely radiative). That particular engine appears to be the RL-10-B, so is a good representative of the ICPS engine, but would not work so well applied to other engines.

If you can provide images/resources for how each of the engines glow, I will gladly look into implementing a more realistic glow pattern on the new engines (-not- changing the existing stuff, though you are more than welcome to if you want... I can provide the original/pre-dds .png files if you need).

- - - Updated - - -

Yah, the things and pace you're developing here are both brilliant. Feel free to ignore whatever request / suggestions you feel aren't comfortable for you to not let your motivation go down We all (I hope) understand how difficult development of this stuff is - especially that you invest a lot of your quality free time into it. And it's not the paid job.

Once again amazing job, ignore stuff/people that cause your motivation to go down and keep it up It's totally awesome:)

As for pod IVAs, they are already cool. I also feel that finished/textured IVA's aren't priority and offer to less compared to the time invested in doing them. Time invested in finishing one IVA can get a lot of other more important things done.

Oh yeah, Shadowmage, feel free to drop me link and let me know what to test, I'll try to do it tommorrow.

Sometimes I just get a bit overwhelmed and testy. Probably doesn't help that I spend possibly unhealthy amounts of time modding, and little time doing any playing/relaxing anymore. Yah, I do need to learn to ignore/dismiss requests... but it is hard for me. I don't like saying no without a valid reason, and for some reason 'because I don't want to' just doesn't seem valid enough to me (though, really, it needs to be).

I understand, as long as your not giving up on them and you plan to do them eventually in the near future (by near I mean (NOT giving you a deadline nor did I mean to offend) around a year). I didn't take any offense also, I like the SLS parts and the decoupler.

Thanks, and no offense taken (and none was intended). No, I'm not giving up on the parts, nor have I any intent of leaving things in an unfinished state. Just have so many things to do / planned, that it may be awhile before it is all finished up.

So, I used SSTU parts to make a Duna Descent + Ascent Vehicle or DDAV.

[snip for brevity]

It would be cool to have a conical shaped landing pod shaped like this, but with no ablator etc etc, but I'm happy enough!

Without SSTU parts (particularly fiddling around with the hollow tanks and tweakables), this would not have been possible (or at least, not look quite so awesome).

Simply epic! Love seeing creations like that, especially with un-intended uses for parts. Glad you are getting some good use out the parts.

I'm pretty much settled on my launcher list with Vostok and Soyuz for light stuff, Jarvis for medium payloads, SLS and Saturn V for heavy and Saturn MLV for the insane stuff.

with current SSTU release I have SLS, and some bits for Jarvis and Saturn, can't wait to be able to have full Jarvis and Saturn using SSTU

here's something I threw together quickly (KW, FASA, SSTU and Procedural Fairings):

Awesome Whats the lift capacity on that beast?

-Should- be able to get analogues of your other favorite launchers before too long. What all is missing? Mostly engines?

This is what I always wanted from stock KSP. And from what I can see the config balancing is perfect for me.

Thanks I've tried to offer some unique parts/functions and keep the balance as close to stock as reasonably possible (with perhaps a hint of OP in a few parts).

And since everyone else is sharing their crazy creations; here is one I've been toying with for a few weeks:

It is a manned Moho expedition (though, can go nearly anywhere); complete with 12km/s dV, 6 crew, 2-man lander, and enough lander fuel for 5 descent/ascents. Includes USI life support capacity of >800 days through the Nom-o-matics w/fertilizer, and easily expandable through including more fertilizer. Also has a MKS 10-kerbal hab ring (undeployed, will be deployed during interplanetary flight after burn is done).

As I've been working on it for the past couple of months, it does not have many SSTU parts on it (the tanks/etc didn't exist when I designed it), my career-game setup is also a couple of SSTU-releases behind (sad I know, that I don't update my own mod in my career game... I just don't get to play it often enough)

- - - Updated - - -

I'm liking the looks of these sep-motor decouplers. Is there any chance we'll see an angled one so we can have the beautiful shuttle sep?

If you have some pics/references/numbers for where you want the thrust transforms/how they should be oriented, sure. Can't implement something though unless I know what it needs to be; and I was unable to find any information regarding the orientation/direction/angles of the shuttle SRB jettison motors.

Edit -- More preview goodness, of the SRB decouplers setup as they should be (and with proper effects this time).

(Apparently they are a bit small, will need to zoom in to see the effects...)

Edited October 29, 2015 by Shadowmage

[JoseEduardo]

I didn't use a testing weight for that, but I would assume something between 140 to 200T (RO), maybe more, I need to get that dummy weight mod again

I will try later a config of it with F-1A and RS-25 to see what monstruosity I can make

@what's missing: yep, engines (namely F-1, J-2 and RL-10- and mounts, other than that they're mostly ready

[riocrokite]

Couple of decoupler design observations (yah I've got stuff to work, had to update MM):

- generally it's great, I like the spacing between attached parts on decoupler, enough to click through the attached tanks and then it's not too much, thrust is enough even for biggest tanks

- I was briefly thinking about 0.625 version, but then the little stock decoupler has a nice scale for that and it would require too much work /tweaking your existing decoupler model to accomodate for that tiny size.

- scalling collider height with decoupler height; probably not possible (?), however having it scaled (so it could be longer) could provide for a part reduction for more complex/other interesting desings (less struts) like a long decoupler beam with several differrent pieces attached to it (don't ask me why;))

- thrust vector; it's currently angled for radial and works great. Probably not worth working on and introducing would be something like vector angle (i.e. from -45 to 45 degrees) for those rare situations where attached tanks/elements have very low or very high CoM relative to the decoupler mount (for safety reasons so the decoupled part does not hit main fuselage).

- mass; it works nicely since for smaller sizes you can reduce amount of solidfuel thus reducing their mass to as low as stock decouplers I guess it doesn't require any tweaks

- model; it looks cool, another idea probably not worth realising; making space for tank piping in the rings

[Shadowmage]

I didn't use a testing weight for that, but I would assume something between 140 to 200T (RO), maybe more, I need to get that dummy weight mod again

I will try later a config of it with F-1A and RS-25 to see what monstruosity I can make

@what's missing: yep, engines (namely F-1, J-2 and RL-10- and mounts, other than that they're mostly ready

Sweet

For test-weights (in stock at least), I have been using the customizable tanks; 5m work out to be 96t per height increment. Just disable the fuel flow on the tank. Probably would not work out as well for RO though, as the fuel mass/tank masses will be quite different.

All of those engines are on my list / already have WIP geometry, so you will probably see them eventually. Hoping to get the coding/plugin side of things wrapped up in the next day or two, and then my time can go back to models/texturing for a bit.

Couple of decoupler design observations (yah I've got stuff to work, had to update MM):

- generally it's great, I like the spacing between attached parts on decoupler, enough to click through the attached tanks and then it's not too much, thrust is enough even for biggest tanks

- I was briefly thinking about 0.625 version, but then the little stock decoupler has a nice scale for that and it would require too much work /tweaking your existing decoupler model to accomodate for that tiny size.

- scalling collider height with decoupler height; probably not possible (?), however having it scaled (so it could be longer) could provide for a part reduction for more complex/other interesting desings (less struts) like a long decoupler beam with several differrent pieces attached to it (don't ask me why;))

- thrust vector; it's currently angled for radial and works great. Probably not worth working on and introducing would be something like vector angle (i.e. from -45 to 45 degrees) for those rare situations where attached tanks/elements have very low or very high CoM relative to the decoupler mount (for safety reasons so the decoupled part does not hit main fuselage).

- mass; it works nicely since for smaller sizes you can reduce amount of solidfuel thus reducing their mass to as low as stock decouplers I guess it doesn't require any tweaks

- model; it looks cool, another idea probably not worth realising; making space for tank piping in the rings

Thanks for the input (and taking the time to get it all working and test it)

0.625m - Will see what I can do about letting it scale more. Generally for the smaller stuff though, the stock decouplers have enough jettison/decoupling force to work properly. Might be easier to make the non-ring-based model scale for 0.625m. Will see what I can do as I am finishing up the models.

Scaling collider height - Hmm... -might- be possible, but would require quite a bit more code to accomplish, and I'm not sure that I want a big vertical strip running down the side of the tank/etc. Will give it some thought, might be something I can work in. No guarantees though.

Thrust vectoring - while possible, it would require some pretty heavy coding to do, and I have no idea how I would show the current thrust orientation to the user in an understandable fashion. Will give it some though... might make it into V2 in the future (after I can work on GUI stuff).

Mass - Yep, you can tweak both the amount of fuel, and the thrust level (burn time); so while it is by-default a bit overpowered for some uses, the thrust should be able to be scaled down for smaller uses as well. And of course, those are all config values and easily alterable through a patch / user customization.

Model - Hmm... will see what I can do about the mounts. Nothing on it is finalized yet, so I can probably rework it a bit. Tricky part is making sure it will still look good/work when scaled to various sizes. For the mount rings, I can probably put a cut-out in them for the fuel-lines, though the central mounting point would be a bit harder to accommodate (might still be able to.. and might actually look cool... though not sure how well it would work for all tank setups, as the central mount does not scale).

Strongly considering releasing the engine cluster plugin on its own as a modders/users tool (just the plugin, no models, though perhaps some stock configs for examples). I think it is probably a good candidate for general end-user/config pack use (much more so than my other plugins). Of course, I would still bundle it with SSTU along with the engine models and some pre-built cluster configs.

Do you guys think this will be something others in general could find useful (besides JoseEduardo, as he is obviously loving it )? Pretty sure it would be a big hit for the part-welding crowd (which is where I started with modding... solving limitations with stock part welding).

[JoseEduardo]

(keeping the of-topic bit) I'm aware of using tanks for testing, but I use this mod here to give me a precise number: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/76231-1-0-x-Kerbal-NRAP-Procedural-test-weights!-v1-5-0-4-30-04-15

(now back on track)

@releasing the plugin in a standalone pack: I was pondering about asking you for that

[Shadowmage]

So.. I'm thinking that the first set of mounts that I release will be basically a slight alteration on the SC-B-ENG mounts, such as:

Might recreate the SC-B-ENG clusters using the new plugin... might not. Though, if I do rework them, it would allow for texture and model re-use for the mounts as general purpose mounts. Either way I'll be 'borrowing' their geometry to rework for the initial mount offerings for engine clusters (along with perhaps a few more original/new designs).

[Shadowmage]

And here is just some of the fun that can be done using the engine-cluster plugin with just some stock parts:

All 6 engines are a single part/engine cluster, including the rescaled quadcoupler as a mount option, note the part-count of 3 (MJ, tank, engines)

The mount is just an option; the engine cluster can also be used by itself, and looks quite appropriate on a 6.25m tank.

[falken]

Any chance we could see a x5 engine bell 5m ICPS? My duna lander weighs in at 80 tonnes which means the current 4 nozzle ICPS struggles at less than 1 TWR and only just gets into orbit.

To be fair I am using kscale2..

[Shadowmage]

Any chance we could see a x5 engine bell 5m ICPS? My duna lander weighs in at 80 tonnes which means the current 4 nozzle ICPS struggles at less than 1 TWR and only just gets into orbit.

To be fair I am using kscale2..

Not from me, at least not in the line of the current models.

Future upper stages will consist of 2 parts -- a fuel tank section and an engine/cluster; so you will be able to make whatever size/TWR/crazy stuff you need. Gotta get all the engine cluster stuff finished first though.

[blowfish]

Any chance we could see a x5 engine bell 5m ICPS? My duna lander weighs in at 80 tonnes which means the current 4 nozzle ICPS struggles at less than 1 TWR and only just gets into orbit.

To be fair I am using kscale2..

The ICPS/HUS aren't really intended for landings, but from what Shadowmage has said it sounds like additional, higher thrust engine options might become available.

EDIT: ninja'd

[Shadowmage]

The ICPS/HUS aren't really intended for landings, but from what Shadowmage has said it sounds like additional, higher thrust engine options might become available.

EDIT: ninja'd

I was under the impression he was talking about the original ascent from Kerbin, where a 1.0 TWR should be plenty for the intended shallow ascent profile. However, I do need some larger engine options for upper stages for the heavier loads, 100t-300t. These will likely end up using J2X or RS-69 rather than the RL10, as the thrust on the RL10 is.... a bit lacking unless used in large numbers.

[riocrokite]

Looking at those 1-to-4 adapters I was having a thought about all your adapters Shadowmage;

What about having an option for longer - streched - version of those adapters?

pros:

- adapters would look more aerodynamic so rockets that have 'branching' design could be leaner

- I guess it wouldn't require much work, just stretching side faces of the models

cons:

- with 8 additional versions for top and bottom cap, it might be a bit of a pain to toggle through all those. One thing that could potentially help would be another button (hehe) for previous cap version since now when I try to toggle tank quickly for desired version and I miss this version I have to toggle through all those caps again.

Just an idea, no need to explain if you don't like it.

[Shadowmage]

Looking at those 1-to-4 adapters I was having a thought about all your adapters Shadowmage;

What about having an option for longer - streched - version of those adapters?

pros:

- adapters would look more aerodynamic so rockets that have 'branching' design could be leaner

- I guess it wouldn't require much work, just stretching side faces of the models

cons:

- with 8 additional versions for top and bottom cap, it might be a bit of a pain to toggle through all those. One thing that could potentially help would be another button (hehe) for previous cap version since now when I try to toggle tank quickly for desired version and I miss this version I have to toggle through all those caps again.

Just an idea, no need to explain if you don't like it.

More multicoupler adapters -- definitely possible. Though rather than creating new geometry and needing new textures, I would rather just scale the existing parts along their Y axis. Would require some minor plugin/code changes to accommodate, but as there is already a scale field, I should be able to relatively easily turn it into a proper Vector3 to allow for per-axis scaling. Or even just create a second field for verticalScale that defaults to the regular scale value for that adapter. I just really don't want to create another set of adapters (right now)... doing the initial set and then trying to do the engine mount adapters nearly killed me (or my motivation at least). Certainly a possibility though, and with the way the plugin is set up these should be very clean and easy to add in at any point in the future. On that note, I need to spend a day or two and finish adding all the rest of the adapters/couplers to the new tanks too (I was just too lazy to figure out all the scales and attach node positions for the initial release of those tank sizes for that many adapters).

Prev (tank/cap/texture) buttons -- Have already added a 'Prev Main Tank' button, and should be able to get the other buttons added. Was trying to keep the right-click menu clean/short until I can do some proper UI for it with the Unity 5 upgrade. But yah, I've often found myself clicking through 20 adapters just to get to the one that I missed... and having two extra buttons on there for now is probably worth the tradeoff for the added convenience. So.. consider it done (actually will be coding it as soon as I post this)

[blowfish]

I was under the impression he was talking about the original ascent from Kerbin, where a 1.0 TWR should be plenty for the intended shallow ascent profile. However, I do need some larger engine options for upper stages for the heavier loads, 100t-300t. These will likely end up using J2X or RS-69 rather than the RL10, as the thrust on the RL10 is.... a bit lacking unless used in large numbers.

I think you're right. But yeah, using a shallow ascent profile anything above a 1.0 TWR is excessive - I usually aim for about 0.7, and 0.5 might be manageable in some situations.

On the subject of upper stages, could I possibly make a request for another engine? It's an intended successor to the RL10, with almost 2.5x as much thrust (267 kN vs 110) and slightly higher Isp (reference). The RL60 has almost the exact same dimensions and shape as the RL10B2, so you could probably reuse most of the geometry and much of the texture (maybe with some recoloring). The turbomachinery is different, but (1) I wouldn't mind particularly if you didn't change it and (2) There are a few (1 2 3) references around for what it's actually supposed to look like. I feel like it would fill an important gap between the RL10 and J2 engines in terms of thrust.

[falken]

I was under the impression he was talking about the original ascent from Kerbin, where a 1.0 TWR should be plenty for the intended shallow ascent profile. However, I do need some larger engine options for upper stages for the heavier loads, 100t-300t. These will likely end up using J2X or RS-69 rather than the RL10, as the thrust on the RL10 is.... a bit lacking unless used in large numbers.

Yup. The 5m ICPS is good, but for extreme cargos it struggles a little. Though I think I need to think bigger for my 1st stage, which is already an extreme variation of the SLS with a 30m tank, 5 nozzle SLS engine base, and 4 (!!!) 5 segment boosters.

It can infact get the lander + heatshield and aeroshell into orbit, but I have to be very careful with my ascent trajectory. It'll never have enough deltaV to then trans-duna, but I figure I could then send up a booster to dock with the lander system and push it there.

I might fiddle around with the 6.25 tanks and the F1 motors which are ridiculous, judging by the stats provided and go three stage ascent...

...I really do love this mod so goddamn much.

e: How can I edit the procedural tanks dry mass? I am using SMURFF which reduces fueltank dry masses to be more in line with what they are IRL. As it stands, SMURFF doesn't seem to actually do anything with the procedural tanks as the mass is quite high on them. When I had a look through the 5m tanks cfg file it had the mass as 0.01, which I'm guessing is a placeholder for a plugin.

Edited October 31, 2015 by falken

[RedParadize]

e: How can I edit the procedural tanks dry mass? I am using SMURFF which reduces fueltank dry masses to be more in line with what they are IRL. As it stands, SMURFF doesn't seem to actually do anything with the procedural tanks as the mass is quite high on them. When I had a look through the 5m tanks cfg file it had the mass as 0.01, which I'm guessing is a placeholder for a plugin.

If I am wrong, please correct me.

I don't think you don't edit tank empty mass directly. But, what you do is you edit the fractional volume lost in data\Fueltypes.cfg. Basicly, it will affect all part proportionaly to its volume (Parts\ShipCore\series_b\SC-B-TANK.cfg). I didn't test if it affect the empty mass as well, but a easy way to test that is to set it to 0.0 and 1.0 and compare the empty mass.

Anyway, even if it doesn't you can still set the tank to fit 3,2x 6,4x & real scale quite easily. I have my fractional volume lost set at 0,12. get the job done in 6,4x!

Edited October 31, 2015 by RedParadize

[falken]

That did it RedParadize! Thanks so much.

[davidy12]

Okay custom engine clusters and upper stages is something that I'd die for.

[Shadowmage]

I think you're right. But yeah, using a shallow ascent profile anything above a 1.0 TWR is excessive - I usually aim for about 0.7, and 0.5 might be manageable in some situations.

On the subject of upper stages, could I possibly make a request for another engine? It's an intended successor to the RL10, with almost 2.5x as much thrust (267 kN vs 110) and slightly higher Isp (reference). The RL60 has almost the exact same dimensions and shape as the RL10B2, so you could probably reuse most of the geometry and much of the texture (maybe with some recoloring). The turbomachinery is different, but (1) I wouldn't mind particularly if you didn't change it and (2) There are a few (1 2 3) references around for what it's actually supposed to look like. I feel like it would fill an important gap between the RL10 and J2 engines in terms of thrust.

Sure I can look into it, I've added your references to my folder of info. Seems like it might be a good higher-tech-tier engine.

Yup. The 5m ICPS is good, but for extreme cargos it struggles a little. Though I think I need to think bigger for my 1st stage, which is already an extreme variation of the SLS with a 30m tank, 5 nozzle SLS engine base, and 4 (!!!) 5 segment boosters.

It can infact get the lander + heatshield and aeroshell into orbit, but I have to be very careful with my ascent trajectory. It'll never have enough deltaV to then trans-duna, but I figure I could then send up a booster to dock with the lander system and push it there.

I might fiddle around with the 6.25 tanks and the F1 motors which are ridiculous, judging by the stats provided and go three stage ascent...

...I really do love this mod so goddamn much.

e: How can I edit the procedural tanks dry mass? I am using SMURFF which reduces fueltank dry masses to be more in line with what they are IRL. As it stands, SMURFF doesn't seem to actually do anything with the procedural tanks as the mass is quite high on them. When I had a look through the 5m tanks cfg file it had the mass as 0.01, which I'm guessing is a placeholder for a plugin.

Note: The current F1 motors have -real world- thrust listed (and mass... and isp...), as they were put in merely to test the initial engine cluster plugin; as such, they will likely be changed/removed/breaking in a near-future update.

Sounds like you got the tank stuff figured out with RedParadize' help. But yes, editing the fueltypes config file (or patching it with MM) is the proper way to change tankage fraction/mass fraction.

There are actually two fields you can edit -

The first determines how much volume is lost due to the difference in the actual tank compared to a cylinder (beveled/rounded tops/etc):

tankageVolumeLoss = 0.15

The default is 0.15, or 15%. Stock uses a pretty wide range for their tanks, but generally falls between 10-20%

The second field determines the dry weight of the tank - as a multipler of the volume lost, with the resultant value used as tons.

tankageMassFactor = 1

The default is 1, meaning for every 1 m^3 of volume lost due to tankage loss, you will have 1 ton of dry weight. Generally this puts things in the ballpark of stock when left at default values.

For your use case, realistic mass-fractions, I would actually suggest altering the tankageMassFactor rather than the tankageVolumeLoss. For stock liquid fuels, a 'tankageMassFactor = 0.3' would give you a ~5% dry-weight/mass fraction.

Thinking on it... I will likely be changing that system up a bit to be a bit simpler to use. tankageVolumeLoss will still work the same, but I'll alter tankageMassFactor to work directly on the final computed mass of the resources; so you can just enter your desired mass fraction. Probably not for this update, but in the near future (perhaps next week).

If I am wrong, please correct me.

I don't think you don't edit tank empty mass directly. But, what you do is you edit the fractional volume lost in data\Fueltypes.cfg. Basicly, it will affect all part proportionaly to its volume (Parts\ShipCore\series_b\SC-B-TANK.cfg). I didn't test if it affect the empty mass as well, but a easy way to test that is to set it to 0.0 and 1.0 and compare the empty mass.

Anyway, even if it doesn't you can still set the tank to fit 3,2x 6,4x & real scale quite easily. I have my fractional volume lost set at 0,12. get the job done in 6,4x!

Thanks for helping out Much appreciated.

Okay custom engine clusters and upper stages is something that I'd die for.

Should start seeing the engines/clusters relatively soon. I have a bit more concept dev before I can start working on the upper stage stuff (and lots of stuff to finish/engines to make), but the upper stages will be based around the custom fuel tank module, with perhaps a few more additions for rcs/solar/ullage. Still working out the details, but I've got a bit of time yet.

Will likely have the update available here in a few hours. Technically it is 'ready' now, but I'm trying to sneak in a last minute new toy, and it needs some texture work before it is ready.

Edited October 31, 2015 by Shadowmage

[davidy12]

@falken: I'd like to see an Aeroshell for a mars lander, however I think right now Shadow is working on the (what I like to call) blocky non-atmospheric landers. So we probably won't be seeing an DAV or KRV any time soon.

PS: how'd you get on pg 45 RealPlume support?

- - - Updated - - -

Still really excited for the surprise in a couple hours

Though I will say one more thing, I still think the F1s are a bit over powered and I hope you'll downgrade them to KSP system standards.

Edited October 31, 2015 by davidy12

[falken]

Shadowmage, do you have a patreon or paypal for donations? The scope of content you have made in such a short time is amazing and I want to give something back.