[0.22] Rocket Power Industries v6.0.0 (New: Ullage Engine, Tank, and Nosecone)

[CoriW]

New modder around the block? Nice!

Yeah, one of the things I've noticed with this part development thing is that, a part should be thoroughly tested and mostly graphically complete before it's released. I sort of made that mistake with the Eagle-X1 Liquid Engine, doing a good chunk of the part development on it after I released it. Although being my very first part to be released I think it's turned out really well, and now since I have that experience under my belt I'm quickly getting the hang of making parts and am able to do it quicker and more efficiently than before.

It's interesting because my first ever part was actually just a basic fuel tank which I made watching a tutorial, I'm quite surprised that my second part ever is an engine with gimbal, fairing, and heating.

Now THIS Is something I would use! Pretty good balence, and loving the new texture.

Yeah the old one was quite ugly.

Happy to see you like it.

[CoriW]

Released update v2.0.0

Version 2.0.0

- Initial Release of Launch Escape and Orbital Maneuvering System (LE-OMS)

Hurray! A new part!

Alright so this part was designed to primarily function as a Launch Escape system, however because I opted for an 'under the pod' design it can't be easily jettisoned when it is no longer needed. So in order to counter this problem I decided to also put in some extra functionality for if you don't end up actually using the Launch Escape part of it during Launch. As a result we have a Launch Escape system that also comes with LiquidFuel, Oxidizer, and Monopropellant! (Also if you don't use the Launch Escape part of it during launch, you can use those engines for an emergency de-orbit burn, so it's a win-win)

Edited October 28, 2013 by CoriW

[wasmic]

wow, the new Eagle-X1 is so much better than the old! And I think you just won the prize for the first under-the-pod LES part in KSP history. Now we can make a Dragon-style pod! (BTW, how about a high isp low thrust radial engine, for use with the OMS part of the LE-OMS? Basically a radial quarter-poodle.)

[CoriW]

wow, the new Eagle-X1 is so much better than the old! And I think you just won the prize for the first under-the-pod LES part in KSP history. Now we can make a Dragon-style pod! (BTW, how about a high isp low thrust radial engine, for use with the OMS part of the LE-OMS? Basically a radial quarter-poodle.)

Thanks, happy to hear you like the new Eagle-X1.

As for the LE-OMS, it's funny because I really wanted to do a Launch Escape system but figured that the traditional ones were done to death and it would simply be re-creating the wheel to make another one. So with that I was determined to come up with a unique Launch Escape system, and this was the result.

And as far as your request goes... I actually had absolutely no idea what sort of part I should make next, so I'll take your request under heavy consideration... Although I may add a bit of my own flavor into it...

EDIT: Forget the 'add a bit of my own flavor into it...', I had an idea that won't work in any practical way, expect radial engines intended for use on the LE-OMS soon.

Edited October 28, 2013 by CoriW

[Nibb31]

600 Isp ??

[CoriW]

600 Isp ??

It's intended to be the intermediary of the Rockomax 'Poodle' Liquid Engine and LV-N Atomic Rocket Motor.

[HoneyFox]

It's intended to be the intermediary of the Rockomax 'Poodle' Liquid Engine and LV-N Atomic Rocket Motor.

Sounds like a LANTR working in LOX mode... higher thrust with lower Isp than NERVA... a good trade-off between acceleration and efficiency.

(reference: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#lantr)

[willow]

I like it, for some reason no one dared bridge the gap between the rocket engines and the nuclear rocket engines. And it's certainly good work for your first released part! Maybe you could reduce the ISP in atmosphere a little more to 180 or somesuch value? To make it a little bit less OP.

Also, if you're looking for ideas.

• A problem that keeps coming back with nuclear engines for me is that they're all so tall. While I like to build relatively flat landers. Maybe a flat nuclear engine?
  
• And another thing that's often missing is an integrated package to slap under a capsule that provides both battery, rcs, monopropellant, an engine and a tiny amount of fuel. Just enough to give a capsule and some landing legs the deltaV required to land on and take off from the mun. A 2.5 version would be nice, but I can easily imagine using 3 or 4 1.25 versions mounted to the outside of a craft. It's a bit like the old dragon capsule, but without the crew storage.
  
• Perhaps specifically designed ejectable fuel pods (decoupler, fuel tank combo) that you can slap on the side for that extra umph?
  
• A small, side mountable 1 person crew quarter, because the hitchhiker tank is kinda ugly and large.
  
• A 1 part colony outpost, I think the keyword here is flat, because most things you can build in KSP today are tall structures.
  

[CoriW]

Released update v3.0.0

Version 3.0.0

- Initial Release of Raven-V1 Liquid Engine
- Tweaked position of Engine FX on Eagle-X1 Liquid Engine
- Tweaked position of Engine FX on Launch Escape and Orbital Maneuvering System (LE-OMS)

Alright so here is the release of a 3rd part! May I introduce to you, the Raven-V1 Liquid Engine!

So this engine was requested by "wasmic", he asked for a high ISP, low thrust radial engine to go along with the Launch Escape and Orbital Maneuvering System (LE-OMS). So this engine is meant to fill that roll, however I did want to try to keep it balanced and decided to make it an intermediary engine to go in between the Rockomax 24-77 and Rockomax Mark 55 Radial Mount Liquid Engine, so it comes with 50 thrust and an ISP of 270 / 310.

EDIT: Oh and if anybody has noticed, yes I like naming engines after birds.

Edited October 29, 2013 by CoriW

[HoneyFox]

Released update v3.0.0

Version 3.0.0

- Initial Release of Raven-V1 Liquid Engine
- Tweaked position of Engine FX on Eagle-X1 Liquid Engine
- Tweaked position of Engine FX on Launch Escape and Orbital Maneuvering System (LE-OMS)

Alright so here is the release of a 3rd part! May I introduce to you, the Raven-V1 Liquid Engine!

So this engine was requested by "wasmic", he asked for a high ISP, low thrust radial engine to go along with the Launch Escape and Orbital Maneuvering System (LE-OMS). So this engine is meant to fill that roll, however I did want to try to keep it balanced and decided to make it an intermediary engine to go in between the Rockomax 24-77 and Rockomax Mark 55 Radial Mount Liquid Engine, so it comes with 50 thrust and an ISP of 270 / 310.

EDIT: Oh and if anybody has noticed, yes I like naming engines after birds.

That engine looks quite suitable for multi-start ullage motors... I was going to modify the KW's solid ullage motor to a liquid one.

[CoriW]

I like it, for some reason no one dared bridge the gap between the rocket engines and the nuclear rocket engines. And it's certainly good work for your first released part! Maybe you could reduce the ISP in atmosphere a little more to 180 or somesuch value? To make it a little bit less OP.

Thanks for the compliment! As for the ISP I don't think the engine is OP at all on it's lower end, with it's mass and thrust it isn't even worth it to use at sea level in the first place. The picture of the Eagle-X1 on the first posts shows it lifting a mere 4 parts, and that's already on the higher end of it's lifting capacity, too much more than that and it just sits on the launch pad.

Let's also do a quick comparison between the Eagle-X1 and the LV-N Atomic Rocket Motor.

--------------------------
LV-N Atomic Rocket Motor

Thrust: 60
ISP: 220 / 800
Mass: 2.25
--------------------------
Eagle-X1 Liquid Engine

Thrust: 120
ISP: 230 / 600
Mass: 3
--------------------------

Honestly the extra 0.75 mass on the Eagle-X1 by itself probably cancels out any efficiency advantage it would have over the LV-N at sea level.

Also, if you're looking for ideas.

• A problem that keeps coming back with nuclear engines for me is that they're all so tall. While I like to build relatively flat landers. Maybe a flat nuclear engine?
  
• And another thing that's often missing is an integrated package to slap under a capsule that provides both battery, rcs, monopropellant, an engine and a tiny amount of fuel. Just enough to give a capsule and some landing legs the deltaV required to land on and take off from the mun. A 2.5 version would be nice, but I can easily imagine using 3 or 4 1.25 versions mounted to the outside of a craft. It's a bit like the old dragon capsule, but without the crew storage.
  
• Perhaps specifically designed ejectable fuel pods (decoupler, fuel tank combo) that you can slap on the side for that extra umph?
  
• A small, side mountable 1 person crew quarter, because the hitchhiker tank is kinda ugly and large.
  
• A 1 part colony outpost, I think the keyword here is flat, because most things you can build in KSP today are tall structures.
  

1) The problem with Nuclear Engines being so tall is actually quite a tough problem, not regarding the possibility of making a part for it, but regarding the fact that nuclear reactors tend to take up quite a bit of space.

2) Actually I have been heavily considering this, I'm a really big fan of the Dragon Lander (See: Dragon landing on Mars) and have always liked the idea of an all-in-one lander, will be considering it.

3) Hmm interesting idea, I'll keep this in mind.

4) Well, I would sort of like to learn how to do crew hatches, which shouldn't be too hard... However I can't guarantee that if I do decide to do it that it would have any internals, would need to do a lot of learning.

5) Well, if you want flat the only thing I can think of for that would be an animated part, which I'd need to also learn how to do.

All in all there are some good idea's here that I'd be willing to try, but I'll need to learn a lot of things first.

List of stuff to learn

- Crew Hatches
- Internals
- Animated Parts

[willow]

Honestly the extra 0.75 mass on the Eagle-X1 by itself probably cancels out any efficiency advantage it would have over the LV-N at sea level.

You're right of course, for some reason I had in mind that the ISP for a nuclear engine in atmosphere was around 100...

1) The problem with Nuclear Engines being so tall is actually quite a tough problem, not regarding the possibility of making a part for it, but regarding the fact that nuclear reactors tend to take up quite a bit of space.

I realize that. Perhaps I'm just asking for too much. Maybe it'd be a possibility to sink the engine into a rocket part right now the whole is tall because you stack a fuel tank on top of an engine. If you could sink the rocket into the fuel tank. You could reduce the vertical height of the whole stack.

Not sure how smart it is to surround your nuclear reactor with combustible fuel though

2) Actually I have been heavily considering this, I'm a really big fan of the Dragon Lander (See: Dragon landing on Mars) and have always liked the idea of an all-in-one lander, will be considering it.

I would suggest doing just the lower part. The dragon was cool but it didn't leave a lot of customisaton. Most I did was slap on some extra fuel tanks. If you have the 2 size lower parts you could effectively put every command pod in the game on them! If you allow radial attachments then the player can customize them a lot.

4) Well, I would sort of like to learn how to do crew hatches, which shouldn't be too hard... However I can't guarantee that if I do decide to do it that it would have any internals, would need to do a lot of learning.

In my experience after you look around internals once you never bother with them again. They're the most overrated part of the game, everyone wants them but there's nothing you can actually do with them.

List of stuff to learn

- Crew Hatches
- Internals
- Animated Parts

Good luck! Thanks for your reply

[CoriW]

You're right of course, for some reason I had in mind that the ISP for a nuclear engine in atmosphere was around 100...

I realize that. Perhaps I'm just asking for too much. Maybe it'd be a possibility to sink the engine into a rocket part right now the whole is tall because you stack a fuel tank on top of an engine. If you could sink the rocket into the fuel tank. You could reduce the vertical height of the whole stack.

Not sure how smart it is to surround your nuclear reactor with combustible fuel though

I would suggest doing just the lower part. The dragon was cool but it didn't leave a lot of customisaton. Most I did was slap on some extra fuel tanks. If you have the 2 size lower parts you could effectively put every command pod in the game on them! If you allow radial attachments then the player can customize them a lot.

In my experience after you look around internals once you never bother with them again. They're the most overrated part of the game, everyone wants them but there's nothing you can actually do with them.

Good luck! Thanks for your reply

Right so a little bit of an update on the Dragon lander style thing... I have a model for it now which I've made to be like a little unit you stick under the Mk1 Command Pod, however I wanted to make it small and and sleek, but the problem I'm now running into is that it carries such a small amount of fuel it could never function as a lander with the ability to land and take off again... If I add any more fuel it'll be OP, and if I increase the efficiency on the engine it has, it'll also be OP... Hmm...

EDIT: Looks like I'll just have to re-model it. >.<

Edited October 29, 2013 by CoriW

[willow]

Right so a little bit of an update on the Dragon lander style thing... I have a model for it now which I've made to be like a little unit you stick under the Mk1 Command Pod, however I wanted to make it small and and sleek, but the problem I'm now running into is that it carries such a small amount of fuel it could never function as a lander with the ability to land and take off again... If I add any more fuel it'll be OP, and if I increase the efficiency on the engine it has, it'll also be OP... Hmm...

EDIT: Looks like I'll just have to re-model it. >.<

You're fast! And I like the idea of a supersleek service package.

You could make that basic version an orbital maneuvering version, howmuch deltaV does it have? If it has around 500 deltaV it'd be good for orbital maneuvering and minmus activity but but too weak for a munar landing. As long as it weighs only a little it'll be usefull. A munar lander would need at least 1200, preferrably 1500 dV...

I also suggested the clip on tanks. If that sleek model of yours can accept clip on tanks and you can up the deltaV that way to a respectable munar lander amount. Then you've effectively solved your problem. AND introduced nice clip on tanks for us to play with which can be used in other situations than just with that dragon service package. If 3 clip on tanks convert an orbital maneuvering vehicle to a mun lander/liftoff vehicle. Then 4 give that little extra umph. And 6 will make it usefull for the long hauls.

If you don't want to go in that direction you can go for a thin tank to insert between your service package and the command pod.

[CoriW]

You're fast! And I like the idea of a supersleek service package.

You could make that basic version an orbital maneuvering version, howmuch deltaV does it have? If it has around 500 deltaV it'd be good for orbital maneuvering and minmus activity but but too weak for a munar landing. As long as it weighs only a little it'll be usefull. A munar lander would need at least 1200, preferrably 1500 dV...

I also suggested the clip on tanks. If that sleek model of yours can accept clip on tanks and you can up the deltaV that way to a respectable munar lander amount. Then you've effectively solved your problem. AND introduced nice clip on tanks for us to play with which can be used in other situations than just with that dragon service package. If 3 clip on tanks convert an orbital maneuvering vehicle to a mun lander/liftoff vehicle. Then 4 give that little extra umph. And 6 will make it usefull for the long hauls.

If you don't want to go in that direction you can go for a thin tank to insert between your service package and the command pod.

So yesterday I actually got tired of trying to figure it out and threw the project in the recycling bin... Pulling it back out now to try again.

It just occurred to me I never actually checked what it's DeltaV was.

EDIT: Right so as it is right now with just a Mk1 Command Pod, Mk16 Parachute, and the module I'm working on, it has 609 DeltaV and a TWR of 2.49 on Kerbin.

EDIT: AND if you stick an FL-T100 Fuel Tank in between the Command Pod and module, it has 1700 DeltaV with a TWR of 1.71, this might actually be good for release as it is right now actually... I'm going to go try a Mun landing with it... I wonder if it's a bit OP, it'll probably need a wee bit of balancing.

EDIT: So I looked into it a bit more and I was right, there were a few inconsistencies with the mass of the module, so I tweaked it to make more sense which of course dropped the previous DeltaV numbers from 609 DV / 2.49 TWR down to 553 DV / 2.27 TWR, still pretty good though. However I think it's also carrying just a wee bit too much fuel for the model size... I think to compensate for that I'll just slightly increase the size of the model which shouldn't be an issue.

EDIT: Right so the Mun test was a bust unfortunately, I had a Mk1 Command Pod, Mk16 Parachute, FL-T100 Fuel Tank, and the module I've been working on. I was able to land on the Mun, however didn't have enough fuel to reach orbit again, there was however enough fuel in Jebs jetpack to get him home though. Without a parachute.

EDIT: Whoa I just noticed, this single post is becoming like a Dev blog. xD

Edited October 30, 2013 by CoriW

[CoriW]

Released update v4.0.0

Version 4.0.0

- Initial Release of Condor-L2 Landing System
- Increased Dry Mass from 0.35 to 0.45 on Launch Escape and Orbital Maneuvering System (LE-OMS)

Introducing the Condor-L2 Landing System! So this part is the result of me trying to make an under the pod engine that contained LiquidFuel, Oxidizer, and Monopropellant, while also having the ability to function as a lander as well. There isn't much fuel built into the Condor-L2, so by itself you'll only be able to land and return on low gravity moons like Minmus, Gilly, Pol, and maybe Bop, but if you add an FL-T200 Fuel Tank between the Condor-L2 and Command Pod, it is able to land and return from places like Mun, Ike, Dres, Bop, Eeloo, and maybe Vall or Moho. Theoretically if you use parachutes to assist in landing on Duna, you could make orbit again with the Condor-L2 and an FL-T200 Fuel Tank, meaning that the only places it can't land and return are Eve, Tylo, and Laythe.

[CoriW]

Released update v5.0.0

Version 5.0.0

- Initial Release of Corella-P3 Liquid Engine

So this engine wasn't really made for any specific purpose, I just made it as one of those "just because" parts. However it can be a bit useful for small lightweight lander probes, having twice the thrust of the LV-1R Liquid Fuel Engine, and it also comes with a small amount of on-board fuel.

NOTE: There is one bug with this engine, if you want the engine to draw fuel from the fuel tank it is connected to, you have to either use a fuel line going from the fuel tank to the engine, or open up the right click menu on the engine and stop the flow of the on-board LiquidFuel and Oxidizer. Otherwise KSP will assume the engine is out of fuel when the on-board fuel is all used up, this seems to be a bug within KSP that I can't fix.

EDIT: You know, I've started to notice that my parts are starting to look generically the same as far as their textures go... Maybe I should start to mess around with different texturing methods rather than continue to use the exact same color palette and methods on every part.

Edited November 1, 2013 by CoriW

[willow]

Hey, congrats on another (few) releases, I've taken the condor for a spin and I like it. I think the default 500 m/s dV is a good balance, it means you can maneuver in orbit but it doesn't get you out of kerbin orbit. Well done!

[wasmic]

You're just pumpkin engines out, aren't you?

EDIT: I just downloaded this mod, and... the textures are friggin huge. You should really 1: convert your textures to .tga format and 2: reduce them to AT LEAST 50 % of their current size. Yes, your engines are very detailed, but sit's just too much in a game like ksp where limited memory is available.

Edited November 1, 2013 by wasmic

[123nick]

can you add modular fuel system capability? that would be just AWESOME!

[CoriW]

Hey, congrats on another (few) releases, I've taken the condor for a spin and I like it. I think the default 500 m/s dV is a good balance, it means you can maneuver in orbit but it doesn't get you out of kerbin orbit. Well done!

Happy to see your enjoying it, and I do try to balance everything the best I can.

You're just pumpkin engines out, aren't you?

EDIT: I just downloaded this mod, and... the textures are friggin huge. You should really 1: convert your textures to .tga format and 2: reduce them to AT LEAST 50 % of their current size. Yes, your engines are very detailed, but sit's just too much in a game like ksp where limited memory is available.

Yeah I really like engines... As for the textures I have noticed some of them are way too big, for example as it sits right now all my parts use 1024x1024 texture and emissive maps, which for some of the smaller parts is way more than what is needed. However for something like the Eagle-X1 I really don't see any way to reduce texture size, because I have tried 512x512 texture and emissive maps on it before and it looked horrible, then there's the part about it having 3 texture maps and 2 emissive maps, which I can't really avoid currently to my knowledge.

Now with all of that being said I don't plan on releasing any more parts until I do some re-texturing. Going to give some of the smaller parts smaller texture and emissive maps and plan to change up some colors and such on all the parts so everything doesn't look quite so bland.

P.S ~ What are the advantages and disadvantages to .tga vs .mbm files? The first few tutorials I looked at told me to compile textures as .mbm files, so that's what I've been doing.

EDIT: Hmm... Right so I think that I'm going to stick to .mbm textures because they seem to be the least problematic texture file type to deal with, however I can also provide lower resolution texture and emissive map options for people who have less room available in their GameData folder.

Will probably see an update in the next few days depending upon how much free time I have.

can you add modular fuel system capability? that would be just AWESOME!

Possibly, I have some other priorities to work on first though. (See above)

Edited November 2, 2013 by CoriW

[wasmic]

Yeah I really like engines... As for the textures I have noticed some of them are way too big, for example as it sits right now all my parts use 1024x1024 texture and emissive maps, which for some of the smaller parts is way more than what is needed. However for something like the Eagle-X1 I really don't see any way to reduce texture size, because I have tried 512x512 texture and emissive maps on it before and it looked horrible, then there's the part about it having 3 texture maps and 2 emissive maps, which I can't really avoid currently to my knowledge.

Now with all of that being said I don't plan on releasing any more parts until I do some re-texturing. Going to give some of the smaller parts smaller texture and emissive maps and plan to change up some colors and such on all the parts so everything doesn't look quite so bland.

P.S ~ What are the advantages and disadvantages to .tga vs .mbm files? The first few tutorials I looked at told me to compile textures as .mbm files, so that's what I've been doing.

EDIT: Hmm... Right so I think that I'm going to stick to .mbm textures because they seem to be the least problematic texture file type to deal with, however I can also provide lower resolution texture and emissive map options for people who have less room available in their GameData folder.

Will probably see an update in the next few days depending upon how much free time I have.

The thing is, that when other people try to do the same experiments, they get different results than Kickasskyle did. My tests show that .tga/.png files take up as much RAM as .mbm, but the thing about using .tga is, that it allows the users to downsize files themselves, thus cutting quite a lot of ram usage away. Anyway, when KSP updates to use unity 4.2 (if it doesn't already), .png will be far superior to both .tga and .mbm, as it will be the fastest loading and least space consuming (outside the game), as well as being the same quality as other formats AND being user-resizable.

Oh, and when you tried 512*512 maps, did you paint it by hand, or did you take a 1024*1024 map and downscaled it to 512*512 in an image editor? Because I've played with a lot of the KW engines at 512*512, and there was no visible difference unless I zoomed all the way in.

[CoriW]

The thing is, that when other people try to do the same experiments, they get different results than Kickasskyle did. My tests show that .tga/.png files take up as much RAM as .mbm, but the thing about using .tga is, that it allows the users to downsize files themselves, thus cutting quite a lot of ram usage away. Anyway, when KSP updates to use unity 4.2 (if it doesn't already), .png will be far superior to both .tga and .mbm, as it will be the fastest loading and least space consuming (outside the game), as well as being the same quality as other formats AND being user-resizable.

Oh, and when you tried 512*512 maps, did you paint it by hand, or did you take a 1024*1024 map and downscaled it to 512*512 in an image editor? Because I've played with a lot of the KW engines at 512*512, and there was no visible difference unless I zoomed all the way in.

I see... As for the 512x512 maps, I didn't know that you were able to just downscale? I thought it required re-exporting the map from the modelling program at different resolutions and re-texturing each one individually. Based on what your saying though, I can just re-scale them and it'll still be able to read the texture and emissive maps properly?

EDIT: Alright so I made some copies of the Eagle-X1 texture and emissive maps and made scaled them from 1024x1024 down to 512x512, and while it did work... Once the texture was added to the engine in unity, it was really kind of blurry. I'll continue to experiment with it.

EDIT: However, I just compiled it with the 512x512 textures and it reduced file size from 15.1 mb down to 3.9 mb... I can see why you'd want low resolution ones.

Edited November 2, 2013 by CoriW

[wasmic]

I see... As for the 512x512 maps, I didn't know that you were able to just downscale? I thought it required re-exporting the map from the modelling program at different resolutions and re-texturing each one individually. Based on what your saying though, I can just re-scale them and it'll still be able to read the texture and emissive maps properly?

EDIT: Alright so I made some copies of the Eagle-X1 texture and emissive maps and made scaled them from 1024x1024 down to 512x512, and while it did work... Once the texture was added to the engine in unity, it was really kind of blurry. I'll continue to experiment with it.

EDIT: However, I just compiled it with the 512x512 textures and it reduced file size from 15.1 mb down to 3.9 mb... I can see why you'd want low resolution ones.

Exactly. It saves a ton of memory. While it does get a little blurry, you will mostly only see that if you zoom really close. The Emissive maps can safely be reduced far below the level of the diffuse maps. I generally put the emmisive maps at 256*256, or 128*128 if it's a very small part. Oh, and a little feedback on the raven engine: its isp is a bit low, I can only get around 600 m/s of delta-v out of a mark 1-2 with a parachute, the LE-OMS, four ravens and a docking port. It would be great if its vacuum isp could be increased to 390. The fuel in the LE-OMS could also be increased a little.

EDIT: the raven's atmo ISP could also do with an increase. I tried to land the same setup as before with it, and the engines ran out of fuel some 5 meters above the surface. Thankfully, nothing exploded.

Edited November 2, 2013 by wasmic

[CoriW]

Exactly. It saves a ton of memory. While it does get a little blurry, you will mostly only see that if you zoom really close. The Emissive maps can safely be reduced far below the level of the diffuse maps. I generally put the emmisive maps at 256*256, or 128*128 if it's a very small part. Oh, and a little feedback on the raven engine: its isp is a bit low, I can only get around 600 m/s of delta-v out of a mark 1-2 with a parachute, the LE-OMS, four ravens and a docking port. It would be great if its vacuum isp could be increased to 390. The fuel in the LE-OMS could also be increased a little.

EDIT: the raven's atmo ISP could also do with an increase. I tried to land the same setup as before with it, and the engines ran out of fuel some 5 meters above the surface. Thankfully, nothing exploded.

So thus far I have converted the Eagle-X1 and LE-OMS and your quite right about the resolution in-game, you do need to be zoomed in quite a bit in order to actually notice the blurriness.

As for the Raven-V1 and LE-OMS... Here's the thing, I can't.

Not because it's not possible or anything, but because it would make the parts OP. The stats on all of my parts are very carefully thought out to try and balance them with the stock parts, for example the Raven-V1 is intended to be the intermediary of the Rockomax 24-77 and Rockomax Mark 55 Radial Mount Liquid Engine, which if you look at the stats, the Rockomax 24-77 has 250/300 ISP, and the Mark 55 Radial Mount Liquid Engine has 290/320 ISP, meaning that the Raven-V1 currently falls directly in the middle at 270/310 ISP. Now I do realize that with that line of thinking the Raven-V1 technically should have 70 thrust, but because it was originally designed to be used on the LE-OMS that much thrust would drain the fuel far too quickly.

As for the LE-OMS I'll take a look into it and see what I can do, although I suspect that if I increase the LiquidFuel and Oxidizer there may be balance issues concerning the size of the model in comparison to how many resources it can hold. Also keep in mind that the LE-OMS was not intended to be a lander originally, it was actually designed to just get you away from the main stack during an emergency. The extra LiquidFuel and Oxidizer was intended for orbital maneuvering in the scenario that the module wasn't used for launch escape, in all honesty the Raven-V1 in general was a complete afterthought.