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

[Jimbodiah]

Cool!!!  At least one of the things I reported turned out to be not just another KSP stock frack-up,

[Sudragon]

Was there a patch that allowed Lhyd/Oxidiser for Neartea's cryo rockets without having to dive into realfuels?

[01010101lzy]

Making Chinese Pack when meeting a problem on modules:

What difference is it between SSTUNodeFairing's snapToNode parameter and snapToSecondNode parameter?

Edited January 23, 2016 by 01010101lzy

[01010101lzy]

Screen goes black when launching in RSS&RF(RO)&FAR, don't know what is causing the problem, but this doesn't happen when not using SSTU parts.

Debug log spamming 

Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle
Error in mesh triangle; triangle plane components are NaN or triangle is degenerate; FAR unable to use this triangle

Occlusion area test is NAN! Args 0.346032348522606 0.70742738180619 NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.241] part1: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.241] part2: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.242] part3: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.242] Occlusion area test is NAN! Args 0.346032348522606 0.346044712332497 NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.243] part1: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.243] part2: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.244] part3: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.244] Occlusion area test is NAN! Args 0.70742738180619 0.346044712332497 NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.245] part1: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.245] part2: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.246] part3: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.247] Occlusion area test is NAN! Args 0.346032348522606 1.19675315632109 NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.247] part1: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.248] part2: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.249] part3: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.249] Occlusion area test is NAN! Args 0.70742738180619 1.19675315632109 NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.250] part1: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.251] part2: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.251] part3: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.252] Occlusion area test is NAN! Args 0.346044712332497 1.19675315632109 NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.253] part1: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.253] part2: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.253] part3: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.254] Occlusion area test is NAN! Args 0.346032348522606 0.1100087434802 NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.255] part1: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.255] part2: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.256] part3: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.256] Occlusion area test is NAN! Args 0.70742738180619 0.1100087434802 NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.257] part1: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.257] part2: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.258] part3: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.258] Occlusion area test is NAN! Args 0.346044712332497 0.1100087434802 NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.259] part1: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.259] part2: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.260] part3: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.260] Occlusion area test is NAN! Args 1.19675315632109 0.1100087434802 NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.261] part1: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.261] part2: NaN
[LOG 19:10:40.262] part3: NaN

 

[JoseEduardo]

that seems a FAR problem with a specific SSTU part, not RSS/RO...

probably the fairings, but I could be wrong

[Shadowmage]

5 hours ago, 01010101lzy said:

Making Chinese Pack when meeting a problem on modules:

What difference is it between SSTUNodeFairing's snapToNode parameter and snapToSecondNode parameter?

snapToNode -- if 'true' the fairing will auto-position its bottom to the bottom node of THAT part. This is the normal behavior for most parts.

snapToSecondNode -- if 'true' the fairing will auto-position its bottom the the bottom node of the part BELOW it.  This is the behavior used on the upper stage and tank parts, to make sure the fairing can cover the engine that is added to the tank.

7 hours ago, Sudragon said:

Was there a patch that allowed Lhyd/Oxidiser for Neartea's cryo rockets without having to dive into realfuels?

Yes, but it is disabled by default.  You will need to go into the GameData/SSTU/Patches directory, and change the LH2.cfg.disabled to LH2.cfg in order to enable it.

It uses the same 15:1 ratio as cryo-engines, though the tank mass balance is likely quite different (and boiloff is not currently implemented).

[stratochief66]

On 1/21/2016 at 4:28 PM, Shadowmage said:

 

 

Believe me... I know the feeling.  Is why I mostly do modding at the moment;  I can't even play my career games due to poor performance (part count/physics) and crashes (OPM/Kopernicus related issues).

Have you given forced DX11 a try Shadowmage? I have actually transitioned to that, since many things have been fixed that used to break DX11. DX11 certainly looks much better than OpenGL!  -force-d3d11

 

[VenomousRequiem]

On 1/22/2016 at 10:14 PM, Shadowmage said:

 

 

Apollo-Soyuz-Orion test project.

[Jimbodiah]

Gives a clear size comparisson. Imagine there being 3 real people in that little soyuz DM capsule. I've seen real-life footage of that thing, just getting inside it is already a challenge, let alone be in there with two others. "ok, who farted?!"

Edited January 24, 2016 by Jimbodiah

[Sudragon]

11 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

It uses the same 15:1 ratio as cryo-engines, though the tank mass balance is likely quite different (and boiloff is not currently implemented).

Re: Cryo ratios, the patch included in the latest pre release still appears to be using 10:1 ratio.

[01010101lzy]

12 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

snapToNode -- if 'true' the fairing will auto-position its bottom to the bottom node of THAT part. This is the normal behavior for most parts.

snapToSecondNode -- if 'true' the fairing will auto-position its bottom the the bottom node of the part BELOW it.  This is the behavior used on the upper stage and tank parts, to make sure the fairing can cover the engine that is added to the tank.

Got this, it seems easy to deal with=w=

[Jimbodiah]

Are you sure, Sudragon? Mine is using 15:1, needed to redo the tanks on my craft files. Existing designs keep the old ratio until you change the tanks out with new ones (not sure if cycling through the fuels will reset it).

Edited January 24, 2016 by Jimbodiah

[01010101lzy]

--[blank]--

Problem solved

Edited January 24, 2016 by 01010101lzy

[Sudragon]

1 hour ago, Jimbodiah said:

Are you sure, Sudragon? Mine is using 15:1, needed to redo the tanks on my craft files. Existing designs keep the old ratio until you change the tanks out with new ones (not sure if cycling through the fuels will reset it).

Gaaaaah. Old version. 

Works now

 

[ComatoseJedi]

On 1/22/2016 at 11:14 PM, Shadowmage said:

 

 

[stratochief66]

I really like the new interstage petal adapter, it has nice nodes particularly for launching with a lander underneath your crew (like the Saturn V)

I thing there might be an error in the calculation of the mass, however. I have a 6.25m base at 32.6T, and a 7.5m base at 77.5T. If I do a similar shape with the Customizable Wide Fairing (which doesn't have the nodes I need, which is why I really like the interstage petal adapter) it weighs about 4T. Even just taking the mass calculator for the IPA by an order of magnitude would be a huge improvement.

[Shadowmage]

1 hour ago, stratochief66 said:

I really like the new interstage petal adapter, it has nice nodes particularly for launching with a lander underneath your crew (like the Saturn V)

I thing there might be an error in the calculation of the mass, however. I have a 6.25m base at 32.6T, and a 7.5m base at 77.5T. If I do a similar shape with the Customizable Wide Fairing (which doesn't have the nodes I need, which is why I really like the interstage petal adapter) it weighs about 4T. Even just taking the mass calculator for the IPA by an order of magnitude would be a huge improvement.

Hmm... it def. shouldn't be weighing 10's of tons, even at very large sizes.  Perhaps 10t for a 10m dia at a decent height, but most others should be much more reasonable 1-6t range.

Will look into this for the next update.

[Jimbodiah]

Mage, is there anything on the Soyuz series left to do in terms of aerodynamics? My rockets all wobble like a drunk sailor on their ascent 

[blowfish]

On 1/14/2016 at 7:46 PM, Shadowmage said:

Better yet, I figured out how to get multiple ModuleRCS on the same part to work properly.

Perhaps it's drag from the stuff inside the LES, which doesn't have the cargo bay module (and therefore doesn't shield anything).

Edited January 25, 2016 by blowfish

[Shadowmage]

15 hours ago, blowfish said:

Perhaps it's drag from the stuff inside the LES, which doesn't have the cargo bay module (and therefore doesn't shield anything).

I have been thinking about a solution to that for a few days now; more as a reason to actually -use- the BPC's than anything else.  Will probably give it a few days more thought before I implement anything; would like to come up with a semi-generic plugin that would work for other potentially shield-enabled parts as well.

[Shadowmage]

Bit of a slow weekend. 

Rebalanced all of the CM/DM heatshields for their intended roles (LKO, Mun, Interplanetary).  Cleaned up RCSBuildAid interaction for engine modules (it does retarded caching and was not liking how I recreated the models while in the editor; have reworked engine cluster to only create engine models ONCE, at the prefab part construction step, so (engine) models never change after initialized).  Cleaned up some drag-cubes that were getting reset for root parts on vessel unpack (MFTs, NodeFairing enabled parts, ParchuteModule enabled parts, MUSs).  Got the first pass of texturing done to the SC-B-BPC (along with some geometry changes to make it a bit more interesting, and COM change to make it jettison better).  And... finished up the J-2X geometry:

Hoping to have the SC-C-BPC finished up for this weekends' release, as well as the last touch-up pass on the SC-C-DM and OM textures.  Also aiming to have the J-2X textured and complete for this weekend, but no guarantees on that one.  Also hoping to have FAR support for this weekends' release, if I can figure a few things out (see below).

-Might- be a release sometime mid-week that includes the fixes and updates done over the weekend, -if- I can get some of these (mostly FAR/RCSBA) bugs fixed up and back to a good stable state.

 

Also spent a bit of time (far too much time..) trying to sort out FAR interaction issues.  Apparently there are quite a few... the big ones include:.  1.) It hates my CM designs, and wants them to re-enter nose-first.  2.) It hates my parachute module because it relies on stock drag cubes.  Have posted some questions in the FAR thread to see if I can get some information on how best to fix these. 

The parachute module I'm pretty sure the only way to fix it will be to move away from the drag-cube system (no, I cannot use RealChutes as RC is still animation and distinct model based -- I need purely runtime defined parachute setups).  Not a huge deal, as I'm pretty sure I can get it working properly in stock using a force-based system; this might as well clean up some problems of how the pods hang below the parachutes (e.g. SC-C-DM hangs perfectly level, while it should hang at an angle due to the attach point) -- pretty sure this can be solved using the force-based drag method (will actually solve itself if done properly, as the force would be applied as-per a real parachute attachment).

The command-pod issues though.... honestly, I have no idea where to begin on those.  It seemed completely non-logical, as even when I moved the COM -below- the pod geometry, the COL merely followed it further down (it seemed to statically stay ~1m below the COM).  Hopefully I'll get some answers/information/list of stuff to investigate from my posts in the FAR thread.

Have not seen any issues regarding the NodeFairings or modular parts -- they seemed to update appropriately as I changed the part model setup, though my testing was mostly concentrated on trying to fix the command pod problems (chutes and COM/COL).

Any other FAR-related issues that I need to look into while I'm working on it? (Speak now... or fix it yourself...)

 

And, for the next set of releases (0.3.28-xxx):

Will be working on the Modular Booster setup.  Have already laid some initial draft-work for the plugin, and working through basic concept development and initial proof-of-concept.

The biggest questions I'm running into so far --

1.)  Should I try and make the module a bit more generic, so that it could potentially be re-used to make LRBs (with user-attached engine/cluster)?  The main difference between use of a MFT and the MRB (modular rocket booster) would be that the MRB includes jettison/retro-rocket capability (either stack or radial, depending on model setup).

2.)  Should I use pre-compiled models for the booster lengths (e.g. ModularFuelTank setup), or dynamically reconstruct the model from a bunch of sub-models (e.g. CustomUpperStage setup)?  Pre-compiled models would certainly be the way to go if I wanted to allow for use as an LRB plugin as well, though it would mean that the SRBs would be limited to set segment lengths, your only 'length' choices would be the number of segments (although, could include some pre-build models with shorter segments as well...).  Really, this all depends on #1 -- if YES to #1, then there is really only one way I can do this.  If no to #1, then either way could still work, though dynamic re-construction from sub-models is certainly trickier from a programming perspective, it might offer more fine-grained adjustment to the finished product.

I personally am leaning towards YES for #1, which means #2 would be 'precompiled models'.  It just seems like the easier way to do things all around, while still offering an acceptable level of customization.

Features:

• Integrated nose-cone swapping (with volume); use any existing nosecone from the ModularFuelTanks, plus a couple of new models (including at least two slanted varieties, and a flat cap for stack-attachment)
• For SRB use, integrated motor-bell geometry, adjustable with varying stats (for an upper-stage vacuum SRB)
• For LRB use, integrated motor mount (with volume) capability
• Ability to scale diameter freely (as per other scalable parts; main increment + fine adjustment slider)
• Ability to either select between preset lengths (e.g. MFT's; likely will go with this method), or fine-grained scaling of segments as per the MUS parts (probably will go with the former pre-compiled method).
• Integrated fuel-switch capability, as-per MFT's (only applicable for LRB styled tanks).
• Integrated jettison capability (as per the BPC's, will auto-jettison when fuel is depleted; might even use the same auto-jettison decoupler module).  Jettison will switch from top-mounted retro-rockets to side-mounted jettison hardware automatically depending on the nose-type selected (nosecone = radial, flat nose/attach node = stack based retro-rockets).
• Automatic Scaling of motor thrust (for SRB setups), and of fuel quantity / part mass (SRB/LRB).  Type of scaling used (and if scaling is enabled at all) can be configured through the part config.
• -Possible- inclusion of a parachute module for recovery of booster parts.

Anything I'm missing on the feature-list?

 

 

[ComatoseJedi]

I concur. Yes for #1 and pre compiled for #2 makes more sense than trying to pour hours of work with little, if any, return. But, this is your mod, you can point in the direction that satisfies you the most. You've put a ton of work into this mod -as is- and anything you add only makes it better. I don't use FAR, so I can't help you decide on where to go on that. The times that I have used it, it bloats my patch count dramatically, which if I don't see a result for the things I load into my game, I don't see the point in using it. While some people enjoy FAR for it's realism in aerodynamics, I find that it lags me out more than any mod out there. Granted, I don't have the best top of the line gaming computer, but it's good enough to play most games out there. 

If you do decide to go with FAR, are you going to replace your models to support this mod only, or as an option?

[Jimbodiah]

J2-X is looking nice!!!

I am really looking for smaller SRBs like with the Delta II type rockets. The current SRBs are too large for most uses other than SLS/Ares style ships. Maybe not use fixed segments lengths as the size factor? Or else maybe two models, one large one for Shuttle/SLS style large boosters and one for smaller non-segment (textures anyway) ones?

?) We already have the radial decouplers with built in seperation motors, what is the function of adding additional ones to the boosters?
?) We already have modular fuel tanks with integrated mount/nose, what would be the difference with separate LRB units, only the separator motors?

Yay on the chutes   This would be helpful for Stage Recovery mods for career mode, right now I need to stick on butt-ugly huge parachutes

Yay on the additional slanted nose cones :)))) What models did you have in mind?

Edited January 25, 2016 by Jimbodiah

[Shadowmage]

15 minutes ago, ComatoseJedi said:

I concur. Yes for #1 and pre compiled for #2 makes more sense than trying to pour hours of work with little, if any, return. But, this is your mod, you can point in the direction that satisfies you the most. You've put a ton of work into this mod -as is- and anything you add only makes it better. I don't use FAR, so I can't help you decide on where to go on that. The times that I have used it, it bloats my patch count dramatically, which if I don't see a result for the things I load into my game, I don't see the point in using it. While some people enjoy FAR for it's realism in aerodynamics, I find that it lags me out more than any mod out there. Granted, I don't have the best top of the line gaming computer, but it's good enough to play most games out there. 

If you do decide to go with FAR, are you going to replace your models to support this mod only, or as an option?

FAR - I don't personally use it either, nor have any intention of using it in the future.  Mostly just sick of seeing FAR-related bug reports, and I'm too nice to tell people to STHU and take it elsewhere; so I'm 'fixing' it. 

No, I will not be changing part models to accommodate FAR.  If there is something that would require a different model setup for some reason, that is something FAR needs to fix.  Honestly, all of the FAR related issues should be the responsibility of FAR to fix;  if it works in stock, but not in FAR, then that is a problem with FAR.

 

1 minute ago, Jimbodiah said:

J2-X is looking nice!!!

I am really looking for smaller SRBs like with the Delta II type rockets. The current SRBs are too large for most uses other than SLS/Ares style ships. Maybe not use fixed segments lengths as the size factor?

?) We already have the radial decouplers with built in seperation motors, what is the function of adding additional ones to the boosters?
?) We already have modular fuel tanks with integrated mount/nose, what would be the difference with separate LRB units, only the separator motors?

Yay on the chutes   This would be helpful for Stage Recovery mods for career mode, right now I need to stick on butt-ugly huge parachutes

Yay on the additional slanted nose cones :)))) What models did you have in mind?

1.) Cannot really do fine-grained height adjustment for the segments without resorting to procedural mesh creation, which is so very limited as far as texture mapping/geometry setup/etc.  Scaling any other pre-built model vertically results in less-than optimal texture distortion... which makes me ill when I look at it.  They -will- be segment based, no way around it; however, there might be a few different choices for the height of each segment.
2.) Part count reduction, especially when used in symmetry.  Why have 1 booster + one decoupler, when it can be just 1 booster? (magnify that times the 2/4/8 boosters that some of these rockets come with, and the parts add up quick).  Also, this will ensure that A: the jettison motor thrust is appropriately scaled, and B: the jettison motor thrust is positioned properly.  My goal is a part count of < 20 for all main lifter+second stage setups.  The rest of the part count should be able to go towards the actual payload and/or other upper stages.
3.) Yep, pretty much.  Still unsure if I'll do the LRB concept, but I'm attempting to develop the plugin in such a way that it will work
4.) Parachutes -- sadly, I do not think they would work with StageRecovery, as I believe it specifically checks for ModuleParachute (and possibly real-chutes).  As I use neither, it would likely not work (without the author adding support for it somehow).  This is mostly only a problem due to lack of proper module interfaces in KSP (e.g. there should be an IEngineModule interface, rather than everyone relying on hardcoding support for ModuleEngines; same with RCS.. there should be an IRCSModule interface rather than hardcoding support to only ModuleRCS; same for parachutes, etc, etc...).
5.) Not particularly, but if you have some detailed images/schematics in mind, feel free to share (needs to be orthographic projection from a proper viewing angle so that I can use it as a diagram when making the cross-section).

 

 

[blowfish]

I don't see any reason why such fine-grained adjustment would be necessary.  I've always found adding SRBs to be a very approximate process anyway.

@Jimbodiah I see why you would want smaller SRBs, but why is exact length adjustment necessary even there?