RLA Stockalike v10 released 11th August

[Krevsin]

Wow, I'm really shocked to not have found this earlier! I'm a huge fan of stockalike utilitarian mods, thank you for this!

[CoriW]

Any info on 0.23 compatibility?

[hoojiwana]

Any info on 0.23 compatibility?

Since everything is just simple parts there should be no compatibility issues at all.

[StainX]

Love your Mod(s)!

Have you considered of adding tweakables?

Like toggle RCS 90° / 180° or the engines between Monopropellant and LF/Oxidizer?

[Ravenchant]

YOU.

I just tested out your mod.

And I think I love you

This is going to make probe and other small-scale missions much more interesting! The parts are balanced against stock almost perfectly, and look great. One of the best part mods ever! Also, it appears to work in .23 without any problems, at least on my install.

Many thanks!

[yeliabmit]

This is one of my top 5 mods. Kudos for the great work -- the rockets and tanks especially feel like they should be stock. Is there a reason this isn't in the sticky list at the beginning of the add-ons showcase? Even if it is a WIP, it's more polished than a lot of mods that are supposedly in full release.

[MmPMSFmM]

Any progress in the meantime?

[Sethnizzle]

Please take this in the spirit it is intended. You need to get some better primary thumbnails for these mods on SpacePort, especially the electric engines one. I have seen these thumbnails probably 100 times and just passed these mods by because they didn't look that appealing.

However, upon trying to edit config files to make a monopropellant fueled engine (with no luck) I decided to give your mods a try, and holy crap they have moved to the top of my favorite mod list. I would say if you can only download 2 parts mods (and want to keep the stock Kerbal feel) then you must get KSPX and RLA Stock-alike. Great work.

[Wjolcz]

Finally someone who has that NovaSilisko's and Claira's sense of style. Looking forward to this.

Also would love to see some command pods and plane parts fitting with it.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Veeltch

[hoojiwana]

ohhhhh my what is that part!!!!! Thank you!!!!!!!! And btw if you still plan on making NERVA length VASIMR thursters?

That part is the new version of my oldest engine, and is the first part for a revamped Electric Engines pack. There's going to be an awful lot less parts than the existing version, and it will almost certainly not be compatible with craft that use the existing version. As for VASIMR, well Nertea has his fantastic looking version, as well as what is essentially what I wanted my Power Generation pack to be. If I wanted to make my own it would be easy to do with the new stock modal engine module, but anything like that will not be part of the upcoming update.

Love your Mod(s)!

Have you considered of adding tweakables?

Like toggle RCS 90° / 180° or the engines between Monopropellant and LF/Oxidizer?

Tweakables doesn't work like that unfortunately, it's not something I can add in a config.

Is there a reason this isn't in the sticky list at the beginning of the add-ons showcase? Even if it is a WIP, it's more polished than a lot of mods that are supposedly in full release.

There's no "full release" of anything because I don't feel the overall quality is good enough. For Stockalike the only thing that isn't up to standard is the Radial Jet and I might just remove that from the download since it doesn't really have much of a point to it. The Cutter is borderline, but I was intending to do a full redo of that part anyway since the stats are lacklustre. After I'm done with the handful of Electric Engines parts, the Cutter is next on the list.

Any progress in the meantime?

No progress over the holidays, but I'll get on with things soon.

Please take this in the spirit it is intended. You need to get some better primary thumbnails for these mods on SpacePort, especially the electric engines one. I have seen these thumbnails probably 100 times and just passed these mods by because they didn't look that appealing.

Spaceport is really awful for showcasing mods, it's really disappointing that Squad gave up on the revamp for it. The first post of this thread is a much better place for seeing what my part packs contain what with the Imgur albums and such. Not really ideal since this thread is kinda hidden in the Addon Development subforum and doesn't get bumped with posts that often.

Also would love to see some command pods and plane parts fitting with it.

I have plenty of ideas I would really love to implement in terms of command pods, so keep an eye out for that.

[NathanKell]

Good *gracious* you have high standards.

Your parts are truly impressive, and a darn sight better than many posted on the Releases forum. You absolutely should consider posting there, this mod would get much more of the attention it so richly deserves.

[MmPMSFmM]

No progress over the holidays, but I'll get on with things soon.

Makes sense, anyway, happy new year!

[Ravien]

I think, one thing what this project needs is tiny science lab and goo container (maybe with 1/3 science of original parts) to match with all 62,5 cm space probes...

[MmPMSFmM]

I think, one thing what this project needs is tiny science lab and goo container (maybe with 1/3 science of original parts) to match with all 62,5 cm space probes...

Sorry but, I already asked that a few pages ago:

I feel like something's missing... I know! Maybe you should try to make a 0,625m version of the SC-9001 Science Jr. and the Mystery Gooâ„¢ Containment Unit.

As Ralathon* said, they'd be hard to balance. I'm not terribly keen on the science system as it stands right now either, so don't expect anything related to it outside of basic compatibility.

*Yeah, we had a little bit of a discussion...

Still, it really would be awesome.

[SciMan]

I've been using the micro RCS blocks in the Stock-alike pack almost exclusively, because the stock RCS blocks have too much thrust for me. When using the stock RCS blocks, I nearly always end up hunting back-and-forth around my target, even if I'm just tapping the RCS controls while in precision control mode.

That kind of problem is totally nonexistent when I use the micro RCS blocks. I find that they make docking and precision maneuvering almost intuitive.

I'm not sure if this has been suggested before, but would it be possible to add some more micro RCS blocks to match the various "standard size" RCS blocks in the Stock-alike pack? A micro 5-port RCS block and a micro linear RCS port would be especially welcome, as those seem to be the ones that I find myself wishing for the most often. I imagine that you could modify the existing standard 4-port micro RCS block from this pack to create the 5-port version, and the micro linear port could simply be a smaller version of the alternate linear port. In theory, that would take less effort than making an entire new part, however I'm unsure if that would be the case in practice.

[sebi.zzr]

is there a way to remove autofarings from eletric engines?

[MmPMSFmM]

Has there been made there some progress in the last week?

[hoojiwana]

I'm not sure if this has been suggested before, but would it be possible to add some more micro RCS blocks to match the various "standard size" RCS blocks in the Stock-alike pack?

5-way port couldn't fit into the existing block, and I'm not fond of making a new unit just for that, the linear version I can easily add though.

Has there been made there some progress in the last week?

Testing some particles on the Arcjet, this in particular is made of two emitters, and a total of 400-600 particles. I have no idea if that's a good amount at all, if anyone has any input regarding particle count and performance I'd greatly welcome it.

And this is a rough model of the new Ion engine, going a slightly different direction to the stock Hall effect thruster.

[landeTLS]

5-way port couldn't fit into the existing block, and I'm not fond of making a new unit just for that, the linear version I can easily add though.

http://i.imgur.com/P8dckrf.jpg

Testing some particles on the Arcjet, this in particular is made of two emitters, and a total of 400-600 particles. I have no idea if that's a good amount at all, if anyone has any input regarding particle count and performance I'd greatly welcome it.

http://i.imgur.com/sytVx4j.jpg

And this is a rough model of the new Ion engine, going a slightly different direction to the stock Hall effect thruster.

Like those models a lot

[macdjord]

Part Request: Smaller surface-mount monopropellant engine

Could we get a version of the MPR-1 that loses the superstructure and lies flat on the surface like the linear RCS port does? I tried making my own by using the .mu file from the linear RCS and the .cfg from the MPR-1, but the model file has no thrustVectorTransform and I can't use the thrusterTransform since, for some reason, RCS fires down the Y axis while engines fire down the Z.

[hoojiwana]

More indepth preview, the specular is not quite the same as it'll end up in KSP due to shader differences, and the in game texture will be compressed. All those hexagons on the grid look a bit odd because each one was placed by hand! Not terribly sure what the stats for this will end up being, possibly double stock Ion thrust at the cost of double the power requirement.

The replacement Resistojet model is underway, and its a lot longer than the existing one, mainly due to a more accurate nozzle shape. Not that any of these are terribly realistic purely down to how big they are, if any realistic configs were made for these I'd argue for shrinking them to at least 50% of their current size.

[StainX]

Damn ur amazing with modeling/texturing!

[hoojiwana]

Damn ur amazing with modeling/texturing!

Thanks! Here's another piece of progress.

As for why I've not shown the Arcjet in Sketchfab, I'm not entirely happy with it's texture. Compared to the Ion and Resistojet it's a bit lacklustre, and the UV mapping could be better.

[wasmic]

All right, one thing about the cutter: its Isp is too low for an Aerospike. Actually, NASA planned to use a linear aerospike for an SSTO, and (especially IRL) you'll need a high Isp to do that. So my suggestion is to change the Isp of the Cutter to about the same as the toroidal aerospike, but weighing more and with more thrust. You could actually balance it off of the LV-T30 - just add weight and Isp, and maybe reduce thrust a little. 340 vac Isp is unrealistic for an aerospike.

[astropapi1]

Man, this IS the next KSPX. Can't thank you enough for these parts.