RLA Stockalike v10 released 11th August

[NoMrBond]

What about using the LV1 'ant' exhaust effect for it, isn't that a smaller particle stream than the RCS one?

[Zaryulenko]

This is something i did when you released the 7.0 version of stockalikes

Its the Mightin "Mighty Series #1- Mighty Lander" first 2 images are from the first rocket (This mission was done on a Kerbal Week) Munar injection Powered by LV-NC!

What do you think hoojiwana? ¡It was supposed to raise kerbals moral to give them a mighty feeling! (And i think it really worked).

[Morrigi]

Is there a particular benefit to using the monopropellent engines?

[Supernovy]

The 0.625m monopropellent tanks have a larger mass of propellent in them than the equivalent rocket fuel tanks (I think this may apply to the other monopropellent tanks as well), which results in a gain in delta-v (usually) despite the lower Isp.

Before the latest version of stockalike, they also filled a gap in thrust between the 48-7S and the Ant.

Thirdly, they mean you can have an orbiter with RCS and a higher thrust main engine while only using one type of fuel, or even only one tank.

Edited September 30, 2013 by Supernovy

[CrazyIvan]

Oh wow that's a lot of positive feedback! I love that you all love my work!

The little RCS blocks use the same size effect as the full size one simply because that's the only option I have available. Until there is an easy way to change the size of the particle effect, or even create my own, the little RCS will be stuck with the huge-by-comparison effect. Not much I can do about that I'm afraid!

On the topic of VASIMR/MPDs, they are barely in the concept stage at the moment. I've got plans for a full overhaul of the Electric Engines pack to bring the artwork in line with Stockalike 0.7 quality, as well as a change in the aim of the pack in general. Many parts will be gone, and there will be new parts to play with. I do need some feedback on how people use the pack as it stand right now though to help me! Mainly on how often people use the different sizes and types of engines. Many people mention how useful the Resistojets are, and those are definitely staying. But the small radial engines and all sizes of Arcjets I'm not sure about. So tell me what you use the most, and what you think just clutters up the place.

Before that update comes out though, there will be a long-overdue addition of solar panels to Power Generation, as well as perhaps more things for Stockalike.

Thanks for the Update! I'm really excited and you mods are always great! I personally would love to see a a very rough concept drawing for VASIMR's/MPD! Also have you thought of of Bimodal/trimodal NERVA design that Also has gears but also produces power? You could kill two birds with one stone btw here's a good resource for any potential engine designs you may want to add :3 http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php

[Captain Sierra]

I noticed some things that I find problematic. The LV-T5 is less powerful and less efficient than the 48-7S. Since probes rarely use their engines, I see no benefit of the alternator to make this useful. Note, this is not a problem with your pack, rather the 48-7S being OP as it stands now, but I think the lv5 may need a buff just to make it usable.

Also, some suggestions: Larger monoprop tanks in 0.625 and 1.25 diameters, like the stock fuel tanks and now your fuel tanks (which have replaced the oscar B for me entirely).

EDIT: please do not remove anything from EE. I find the variety refreshing and love having it. I really like all the engine types which mean there is an engine for every job. I think I have a probe for every engine you offer in that pack. an art change and new parts would be fantastic but I'd really be dissapointed if stuff was removed.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Captain Sierra

[WhatsThisButtonDo]

.............EDIT: please do not remove anything from EE. I find the variety refreshing and love having it. I really like all the engine types which mean there is an engine for every job. I think I have a probe for every engine you offer in that pack. an art change and new parts would be fantastic but I'd really be dissapointed if stuff was removed.

Totally agree with you on this Captain Sierra, I wouldn't want to have to build probes and landers and even small orbiting stations without having these parts. hoojiwana has made things a lot easier for 'smaller is better' rocketeers like me.

[hoojiwana]

What about using the LV1 'ant' exhaust effect for it, isn't that a smaller particle stream than the RCS one?

That exhaust effect is roughly the same size as the RCS one. Not that it matters since you can't actually chance the RCS effect anyway, which I probably should've mentioned in my previous answer!

This is something i did when you released the 7.0 version of stockalikes

Its the Mightin "Mighty Series #1- Mighty Lander" first 2 images are from the first rocket (This mission was done on a Kerbal Week) Munar injection Powered by LV-NC!

Snipped

What do you think hoojiwana? ¡It was supposed to raise kerbals moral to give them a mighty feeling! (And i think it really worked).

Looks great! How do you like the LV-Nc?

Is there a particular benefit to using the monopropellent engines?

The 0.625m monopropellent tanks have a larger mass of propellent in them than the equivalent rocket fuel tanks (I think this may apply to the other monopropellent tanks as well), which results in a gain in delta-v (usually) despite the lower Isp.

Before the latest version of stockalike, they also filled a gap in thrust between the 48-7S and the Ant.

Thirdly, they mean you can have an orbiter with RCS and a higher thrust main engine while only using one type of fuel, or even only one tank.

Exactly this, the engines actually end up withmore dV than their ISP suggests. I also had a number of requests to make some monopropellent engines, and there are real-world examples of them. I even made a Viking-style lander to test the radial ones out, since the real thing used monopropellent engines. The skycrane that dropped off Curiosity used engines derived from those that Viking used as well.

Thanks for the Update! I'm really excited and you mods are always great! I personally would love to see a a very rough concept drawing for VASIMR's/MPD! Also have you thought of of Bimodal/trimodal NERVA design that Also has gears but also produces power? You could kill two birds with one stone btw here's a good resource for any potential engine designs you may want to add :3 http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php

Fun fact; the Atomic in Roemy-Lemdum Atomics is there because I originally wanted to make all those crazy nuclear engines that are on that list. Quite how I ended up doing Electric Engines and stockalike parts I'm not sure!

As for making a modal NERVA, such a thing would need a plugin and I'm sure you're all aware that I don't wish to add any dependencies to my releases.

I noticed some things that I find problematic. The LV-T5 is less powerful and less efficient than the 48-7S. Since probes rarely use their engines, I see no benefit of the alternator to make this useful. Note, this is not a problem with your pack, rather the 48-7S being OP as it stands now, but I think the lv5 may need a buff just to make it usable.

Also, some suggestions: Larger monoprop tanks in 0.625 and 1.25 diameters, like the stock fuel tanks and now your fuel tanks (which have replaced the oscar B for me entirely).

The LV-T5 has slightly higher ISP than the 48-7S, but you're bang on with the 48-7S being OP. Balancing anything against that is a huge challenge, if I make the engine too good it becomes OP in itself, but if it's too weak there's no point in using it. That's why it has the alternator to make it slightly more attractive, and I prefer having an engine be underpowered rather than overpowered.

Not sure about adding larger monopropellent tanks, the engines are not intended to be used as primary propulsion methods, they are there for one-way landers and short journey vessels. If you do need more there is always the 2.5m inline tank, that has the best wet-to-dry mass ratio as well. Speaking of mass ratios, the Oscar-B and Toroidal tank are far out of line with the larger stock tanks which are all 11.11% dry mass. The FS-Lx tanks are all on, or just slightly over, the same dry mass ratio as the larger tanks. They are essentially better than stock parts for that reason.

EDIT: please do not remove anything from EE. I find the variety refreshing and love having it. I really like all the engine types which mean there is an engine for every job. I think I have a probe for every engine you offer in that pack. an art change and new parts would be fantastic but I'd really be dissapointed if stuff was removed.

Totally agree with you on this Captain Sierra, I wouldn't want to have to build probes and landers and even small orbiting stations without having these parts. hoojiwana has made things a lot easier for 'smaller is better' rocketeers like me.

I hear you, but I'm also keen to prune the pack of those parts that are underutilised. How often do you use the Arcjets, the radial engines (all varieties) and the 1.25m clusters (all varieties)? What about the Xenon tank sizes, is there one size you never use?

[CaptRobau]

Great work hooijwana. I was wondering if you'd have any interest in redoing the stock Structural Fuselage and add additional structural fuselages in different sizes and lengths. The Structural Fuselage doesn't really fit stock designs unless it's a spaceplane, but the part is nonetheless very useful. If it came in different sizes/lengths it'd be even better. They could be used for more intuitive spaceplane designs or as walkways between station parts.

[Captain Sierra]

No, I use all the xenon sizes. The arcjets, I do use as they require lesspower hogging than resistojets. The radial engines I use less but they do have their place and they do come in handy. Since your pack is so small and well optimized, I see no reason to need to cut stuff out. Oh, and why on earth would I use the 2.5m inline RCS tank for a probe? Those monoprop engines have become a staple on my probes as they are made lighter and I don't need to do hour long circularization burns with ion engines when I go to planets. Something like your new smaller tanks would be perfect in monoprop too!

[Absolute Human]

LV-T5 is underpowered? That is ridiculous! Actually it is overpowered a bit:

http://imgur.com/a/2jKTi

Don't even think about upgrading it, it's fine.

What you should consider in my opinion, is to increase the Isp of the monoprops... They suck too much

I mean, yeh they have the stock Isp level, but why?

All stock engines have different Isp'es although use the same fuel. Basically, smaller engines have worse impulse.

And if the Ant engine have Isp = 290, RCS have 260 and they are the same size, then why bigger thrusters have the same Isp unlike the engines? Yes, they are somewhat lighter than just a bunch of linear RCS, but that is not the way, I think...

If you scaled the NERVA (which I like a lot), so why not to scale RCS contrariwise?

The point of making an engine rather than a control thruster is that you can make it more efficient, so even probe monopropes should get some more impulse, not even talking about the big one. It is like an LV-909 but two times worse! Why do you hate it so much? Monopropelant fuel can't be SO bad. Given the difference of 30 between RCS and the Ant with equal nozzles, it is fair to scale Isp accordinately to make it about 30 worse than a corresponding LF engine. Just saying. Of course, I can change the numbers myself and be happy, but I really feel it as an essential fix.

BTW, pictures:

http://imgur.com/a/TmqSp

(This thing is so small to keep good framerate)

Edited October 4, 2013 by Absolute Human

[Photonically]

I hear you, but I'm also keen to prune the pack of those parts that are underutilised. How often do you use the Arcjets, the radial engines (all varieties) and the 1.25m clusters (all varieties)? What about the Xenon tank sizes, is there one size you never use?

Maybe one option would be do away with the 1.25m clusters and add a generic 1.25->4x0.6 adapter to the Stockalike pack?

[CrazyIvan]

Hey just a heads up! Are you gonna start working on your packs once .22 is released?

[Afkpuz]

Maybe one option would be do away with the 1.25m clusters and add a generic 1.25->4x0.6 adapter to the Stockalike pack?

This seems like the way to go. I'd also really like a 1.25 -> 2x0.625 adapter.

Mostly posting to say thanks, though. Your pack is awesome, and your mini-NERVA enabled one of my long-time dreams:

(Subsequent versions of this plane use your .625 fuel tanks as well - they're pretty much exactly the sizes I wanted, too!)

[hoojiwana]

Great work hooijwana. I was wondering if you'd have any interest in redoing the stock Structural Fuselage and add additional structural fuselages in different sizes and lengths. The Structural Fuselage doesn't really fit stock designs unless it's a spaceplane, but the part is nonetheless very useful. If it came in different sizes/lengths it'd be even better. They could be used for more intuitive spaceplane designs or as walkways between station parts.

It's an idea certainly. Kommitz has started doing a Stockalike structural set, you should suggest this to him as well.

No, I use all the xenon sizes. The arcjets, I do use as they require lesspower hogging than resistojets. The radial engines I use less but they do have their place and they do come in handy. Since your pack is so small and well optimized, I see no reason to need to cut stuff out. Oh, and why on earth would I use the 2.5m inline RCS tank for a probe? Those monoprop engines have become a staple on my probes as they are made lighter and I don't need to do hour long circularization burns with ion engines when I go to planets. Something like your new smaller tanks would be perfect in monoprop too!

Arcjets use the exact same amount of power as every other engine type, unless you're using more of them to get the same amount of thrust as resistojets. They're sat halfway between the Ions and Resistos in terms of ISP and thrust, but not power requirements. I have some ideas for tiny radial monopropellent tanks, so they might help out for probes. I'm not sold on the idea of even larger inline tanks since the engines are not intended to be used as main propulsion, that's what LFO (or possibly electric) engines are for.

LV-T5 is underpowered? That is ridiculous! Actually it is overpowered a bit:

Don't even think about upgrading it, it's fine.

You're always going to get odd results with a tiny fuel tank though. But still, point taken. Balance against the 48-7S is incredibly difficult to achieve, I have an idea about how to avoid needing to do it in the future.

What you should consider in my opinion, is to increase the Isp of the monoprops... They suck too much

I mean, yeh they have the stock Isp level, but why?

The ISP of the MP rockets cannot be directly compared to the LFO ones because it doesn't use a fuel mixture, the MP tanks have different wet/dry mass ratios, and they're not supposed to be used as an LFO replacement.

Maybe one option would be do away with the 1.25m clusters and add a generic 1.25->4x0.6 adapter to the Stockalike pack?

This seems like the way to go. I'd also really like a 1.25 -> 2x0.625 adapter.

I like this idea, and adding bi/tri/quad adapters would make sense for Stockalike. It might be a bit finnicky with having those adapters on decouplers, but I guess that's already an issue with engine clusters. There is also the issue of part count I suppose, but if I made a cluster of engines for all possible things a player might make, there would just be part bloat in the pack. Solution is possibly a combination of the adapters and 1.25m engines that are more interesting than clusters, if power isn't too big of a concern.

Mostly posting to say thanks, though. Your pack is awesome, and your mini-NERVA enabled one of my long-time dreams:

(Subsequent versions of this plane use your .625 fuel tanks as well - they're pretty much exactly the sizes I wanted, too!)

Look great, and thanks for the feedback!

Hey just a heads up! Are you gonna start working on your packs once .22 is released?

Yes. Expect everything to be made compatible with career mode as soon as I can actually sort out new versions after 0.22 is released. Still not sure exactly what I'll work on first in terms of new/updated parts, but I still have bits I would like to add to Stockalike I could do, and that idea about avoiding balancing against the 48-7S.

[NoMrBond]

You're always going to get odd results with a tiny fuel tank though. But still, point taken. Balance against the 48-7S is incredibly difficult to achieve, I have an idea about how to avoid needing to do it in the future.

That thing is such an outlier, it has more thrust per unit mass than a Skipper. It should have maybe ~17 thrust at best.

[dizzysaurus]

Just want to say I love this mod. Especially the little 625mm tanks and engines. I never use anything else for my orbiting probes and smaller landers now!

[Absolute Human]

You're always going to get odd results with a tiny fuel tank though. But still, point taken. Balance against the 48-7S is incredibly difficult to achieve, I have an idea about how to avoid needing to do it in the future.

Not really the size of a tank mater. It's ISP is higher and it's mass is lower, so LV-T5 wins anyway.

It loses only when you want to have more TWR. That's a fair tradeoff, I think.

The ISP of the MP rockets cannot be directly compared to the LFO ones because it doesn't use a fuel mixture, the MP tanks have different wet/dry mass ratios, and they're not supposed to be used as an LFO replacement.

Ok, I understand your reasons. Leave it as it is, if it is more correct.

I just have to said that in game any Isp for the MP engines won't be cheating if it is lower than an LFO's impulse, it can't give you any reall benefit. I simply found it strange, that all of them have the same Isp level, while the LFO's have a full range of different values.

[hoojiwana]

Everything should be updated to be compatible with the tech tree, enjoy!

[CrazyIvan]

Any help needed for your next updates? I would love to help!

[hoojiwana]

Any help needed for your next updates? I would love to help!

I love the enthusiasm! If you want to help simply provide constructive feedback on Electric Engines parts and potential new art styles, and on part ideas for Stockalike. Though I have plenty of ideas and things to make already! I've started work on the next update for that as well, here's a quick little picture;

A slight texture update to the 0.625m radial stack extender, and a 0.625m radial attachment point. Sure you can use Cubic Octags, but they look ugly and have no mass so are a bit cheaty. The radial attachment point doesn't use any new textures at all, it is the exact same area on the existing texture for the stack extender, so that's why it might look a little odd in some places. A great way to save memory usage!

EDIT: Posted at nearly the same time as the poster below, but it's a point I should make. If you add or alter any parts that are assigned to a tech node you already have unlocked, you will need to head into the R&D UI and "purchase" the parts from the tech node. You should see the parts with a cost in the preview window on the right after selecting the appropriate node. This happens because of a partly implemented system for part purchasing.

Edited October 19, 2013 by hoojiwana

[AceofPengwins]

Some of the parts from this mod are showing up but greyed out, with the message: "Part model requires an entry purchase in R&D..." does this mean I just haven't unlocked them yet? It's a bit weird. Also, I installed this mod partway through a career mode game... so I suppose that might be the problem? I.E. the parts should be unlocked, but since I didn't have the mod when I unlocked those nodes, they didn't get unlocked? Slightly confused.

Screenshot:

[Gaius]

Some of the parts from this mod are showing up but greyed out, with the message: "Part model requires an entry purchase in R&D..." does this mean I just haven't unlocked them yet?

Right. When you unlocked the node, you hadn't installed this mod yet, so those parts weren't unlocked at that time. Since you've already unlocked the node, you should be able to go back into the tech tree and select those new parts and unlock them as well. When you click on the node, you'll see all the available parts on the right. Select the new parts and unlock them.

[Mokmo]

I just picked up Stockalike and... OMG !

Mini nuke engines... been wondering if someone had made one

and those probe RCS...

I'm definetly trying this!

(had a ton of ships with the 45 degree RCS on my 0.21 save, i'm about to try using it in 0.22 but a mod or two aren't ready afaik)

[hoojiwana]

Another part update is available, though not quite as expansive as the last. Here is it on Spaceport. Just a few probe scale structural parts like those adapters suggested a few pages back, and some tiny monopropellent tanks. I also reduced the Radial Jet texture to be 512x512, and removed the bad normal map it had. Overall that means the whole thing is actually the same size if not slightly smaller than 0.7 was.