[1.2 - 1.4] Modular Rocket Systems v1.13.2 (2018-03-12) - Stock-alike Parts Pack

[NecroBones]

Any realfuels config?

Not currently, as you're the first to bring it up. I may have to investigate that.

[The Yellow Dart]

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I am loving MRS and 0-point fairings and have been using them since you first put them in the release forum. They are just about exactly what I had been looking for since I gave up vanilla ksp. This fills so many gaps that have always bothered me with stock when I am trying to build nice looking rockets. Also I just saw the 1.0 release, and those cargo bays look awesome. Are there plans for a 1.25 version? also, if you made a super short version of either the 2.5 or a 1.25 cargo bay, I would love to use it like the 6S service module mod, which always bothered me because you can only open it with a Kerbal on EVA so you can't use it on probes. I hate having to put everything on the outside, like batteries and small RCS tanks and experiments, etc. Okay, just a few more ideas: I wouldn't mind having an efficient (390 isp) 3.75m engine like the poodle. More sizes of radial RCS tanks, and I don't know if this can be done but it would really help to have a retractable fin, either like the Space x grasshopper's paddle fin or a conventional fin that clips into whatever it is attached to when retracted. Sorry for all the suggestions, love the mods! You've enabled me to make a lander whose appearance I don't despise!

[NecroBones]

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I am loving MRS and 0-point fairings and have been using them since you first put them in the release forum. They are just about exactly what I had been looking for since I gave up vanilla ksp. This fills so many gaps that have always bothered me with stock when I am trying to build nice looking rockets. Also I just saw the 1.0 release, and those cargo bays look awesome. Are there plans for a 1.25 version? also, if you made a super short version of either the 2.5 or a 1.25 cargo bay, I would love to use it like the 6S service module mod, which always bothered me because you can only open it with a Kerbal on EVA so you can't use it on probes. I hate having to put everything on the outside, like batteries and small RCS tanks and experiments, etc. Okay, just a few more ideas: I wouldn't mind having an efficient (390 isp) 3.75m engine like the poodle. More sizes of radial RCS tanks, and I don't know if this can be done but it would really help to have a retractable fin, either like the Space x grasshopper's paddle fin or a conventional fin that clips into whatever it is attached to when retracted. Sorry for all the suggestions, love the mods! You've enabled me to make a lander whose appearance I don't despise!

http://i.imgur.com/d2FqD8Y.png

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

http://i.imgur.com/uO85bpV.png

Awesome! Yeah, those little radial tanks are super useful, aren't they?

Those are some good suggestions. Don't worry, I like part suggestions when they're great gaps/niches to work toward.

I wanted to get the 2.5m cargo bays in first, and see how it goes, but a 1.25m bay could certainly be useful as well. I am thinking about a 390 ISP 3.75m engine. I'll keep several of these part ideas in mind!

[Starman4308]

Hey Necrobones, were you aware that you don't seem to be listed in the stickied mod library?

Also, thanks for the parts: I am very much anticipating Raptor's configs for RF so I can use those quad-nuclear engines, the cargo bays to put rovers in, and I'm already using the 3.75m-3x2.5m adapter for my current Duna mission*.

*There is a certain feeling to be had when, despite doing your level best to minimize weight, your unmanned Duna/Ike sample return mission still requires a 1400t launcher (6.4x Kerbin), right about as much as the Falcon Heavy.

[LitaAlto]

I'll be getting the new version out soon. The last part I'm putting together for the new version is a 3.75m quad-engine. Its stats are very close to the NASA-SLS style one from the ARM pack. This one is in the category of "alternate appearance for a previous stock option". The existing quad-engine has always bothered me, in that its engine bells look tiny compared to the thrust it generates (each nozzle is equivalent to a skipper), and also the bi-radial symmetry doesn't do it for me. So I wanted something functionally similar, but with a much beefier set of engine bells. Plus, from a realism standpint, atmospheric rockets benefit from longer bells, whereas vacuum rockets benefit from wider ones, so having some length makes sense for lower-stage lifter rockets.

To differentiate it a little, I gave it a tiny bit more thrust, but with the caveat of costing slightly more, and also having a slightly lower vacuum ISP. Basically what that means, is that it gives you just a hair more thrust "out of the gate" for your heavy lifters (3330 vs 3200), but the efficiency improvement with altitude is a little slower.

I tested the new quad-engine today, and I really like them.

[NecroBones]

Hey Necrobones, were you aware that you don't seem to be listed in the stickied mod library?

Also, thanks for the parts: I am very much anticipating Raptor's configs for RF so I can use those quad-nuclear engines, the cargo bays to put rovers in, and I'm already using the 3.75m-3x2.5m adapter for my current Duna mission*.

*There is a certain feeling to be had when, despite doing your level best to minimize weight, your unmanned Duna/Ike sample return mission still requires a 1400t launcher (6.4x Kerbin), right about as much as the Falcon Heavy.

Awesome! I look forward to some screenshots. Oh, and thanks for pointing out the mod library. For some reason, I never even noticed the thread. I'll bug them about getting added to the list!

I tested the new quad-engine today, and I really like them.

Great! Yeah, it seemed to me that a beefier look would be good overall.

[NecroBones]

I've started on the 3.75m poodle-like engine. Not sure if I'll add any more details or tweak colors before release. I went with a quad-nozzle design, thinking it would emulate a small array of LV-T45 equivalent engines, or something along those lines.

Also, a 1.25m cargo bay.

And... I also noticed that somehow I lost the "NoAttach" flag on the doors for the 2.5m cargo bays before releasing them. That's terribly frustrating (and ironic), since I held off releasing them until I had that solved. So between that, and having a few new parts, I may get 1.1 out before long.

Screenies:

[Red Iron Crown]

Lol at "Terrier" being a bigger Poodle.

Are you still taking requests Necro? The Mk2 line could use some parts to flesh it out...

[NecroBones]

Lol at "Terrier" being a bigger Poodle.

Are you still taking requests Necro? The Mk2 line could use some parts to flesh it out...

lol yes, I thought it would be amusing to continue the dog theme.

But of course, part suggestions are always welcome. The Mk2 parts would be interesting to work with. The thing I'm curious about, is whether Squad is planning to add more in 0.90. We know the Mk3 parts are in the works, but I'm wondering if it will be Mk3 only, or if they'll be adding more spaceplane parts in general. So I'm trying to consider that they may not be done on their side. What did you have in mind?

I'll post more screenies of the "Terrier" tonight probably. I did rework some of the detail a little. Subtle changes, but a good overall improvement IMHO.

[Red Iron Crown]

The biggest ones I'd like to see are a Mk2 decoupler and a Mk2-2.5m adapter (fueled or structural). Other than that, the common requests seem to be batteries, reaction wheels and nosecones in the Mk2 profile. Perhaps a Mk2 shaped intake, equivalent to 2 or 3 ram intakes.

Better landing gear would be cool, but they're coming in 0.90 I think.

[NecroBones]

The biggest ones I'd like to see are a Mk2 decoupler and a Mk2-2.5m adapter (fueled or structural). Other than that, the common requests seem to be batteries, reaction wheels and nosecones in the Mk2 profile. Perhaps a Mk2 shaped intake, equivalent to 2 or 3 ram intakes.

Better landing gear would be cool, but they're coming in 0.90 I think.

Right, I think you're right about the landing gear.

OK cool, those other parts are all great ideas. I'll have to see if I can figure out the exact dimensions of the new Mk2 cross-section. With that, at the very least some batteries, reaction wheels, and decouplers would be pretty straightforward to make.

[LitaAlto]

I've started on the 3.75m poodle-like engine. Not sure if I'll add any more details or tweak colors before release. I went with a quad-nozzle design, thinking it would emulate a small array of LV-T45 equivalent engines, or something along those lines.

OOH. I like the Terrier design! I downloaded a 3.75m service module part that's a combo fuel tank and (TINY!) engine, but the Terrier looks a lot more realistic and would blend better with my general rocket designs.

[Noio]

I love these parts, but I worry about RAM as the part count goes up. Would it be feasible to partition the pack up so it's easier to remove bits which are not needed, or are redundant with other installed mods?

[E.Nygma]

Hi again ☺

Your modpack continues to amaze me and congrats to the1.0 release!

Are you planning on adding an ion engine in your style to 1.1? *hint*

Regards

Edited November 4, 2014 by E.Nygma

[NecroBones]

OOH. I like the Terrier design! I downloaded a 3.75m service module part that's a combo fuel tank and (TINY!) engine, but the Terrier looks a lot more realistic and would blend better with my general rocket designs.

Glad you like it! I made some tweaks that I think look pretty good (screenshots below). The new framework on the engine bells makes it look a lot better, IMHO.

I love these parts, but I worry about RAM as the part count goes up. Would it be feasible to partition the pack up so it's easier to remove bits which are not needed, or are redundant with other installed mods?

There's probably some redundancy in some places, true. But to my knowledge, there aren't any mods that address the same set of "gaps" in the stock line-up, which was one of the main foci of this mod. Having it all in one place works well for people who don't use large part packs and want a mostly stock-like experience, without managing dozens of packages.

The good news is that it's not too heavy on the RAM usage. So far the "Parts" folder is 71 MB (or 0.069 GB), and that includes uncompressed MBM images, so the RAM usage shouldn't be any higher than that. It's not like adding KW Rocketry or B9 Aerospace, in terms of the RAM hit. I try to keep the textures a reasonable size, and in some cases re-use them for a few parts (for instance, both of the 2.5m cargo bays share one texture file).

But if you wanted to delete some parts out that you're not going to want, it's pretty easy to do so. For instance, all of the engines are in the "Engines" folder.

However, with all of that in mind, when certain ideas strike that can stand on their own, I'm already doing those separately. For instance, I made my fairings package a separate mod, and I'm considering a 5m ARM-like package, which would also be separate. Most of the "fill in the gaps" type of stuff really belongs here I think.

Hi again ☺

Your modpack continues to amaze me and congrats to the1.0 release!

Are you planning on adding an ion engine in your style to 1.1? *hint*

Regards

Glad you're enjoying it! I hadn't thought about an ion engine specifically, no. What did you have in mind? A larger model?

As promised, a few more screenies:

[Starman4308]

Hey Necrobones, how hard would it be to whip up some circular probe cores in various sizes (particularly 1.25m, 2.5m, 3.75m, and maybe 5m) which amount to "We took an OKTO, and put an RCS tank/structural element around it"? Particularly with FAR, it's kinda wobbly to have a 0.625m probe core in between two 2.5m stacks, it's ugly, and the existing 1.25m/2.5m probe cores are late in the tech tree. The 2.5m one also has a weight issue: it's 0.4t heavier than an OKTO, and if you don't need the additional electric storage or reaction wheel strength, it's dead mass.

I would mostly use it to send LKO boosters into reentry so they don't clutter up my orbits. My current solution is an inelegant mess: to sandwich an OKTO between two procedural fairing rings and strut the hell out of it.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Starman4308

[NecroBones]

I love these parts, but I worry about RAM as the part count goes up. Would it be feasible to partition the pack up so it's easier to remove bits which are not needed, or are redundant with other installed mods?

....

However, with all of that in mind, when certain ideas strike that can stand on their own, I'm already doing those separately. For instance, I made my fairings package a separate mod, and I'm considering a 5m ARM-like package, which would also be separate. Most of the "fill in the gaps" type of stuff really belongs here I think.

Something that does occur to me though, is that if I start looking into Mk.2 spaceplane gaps, is that it could potentially stand on its own as a spaceplane enhancement pack (Spaceplane Plus Plus?? lol). MRS so far is mainly a rocket extension pack.

Something to think about. I'll do some pondering.

Hey Necrobones, how hard would it be to whip up some circular probe cores in various sizes (particularly 1.25m, 2.5m, 3.75m, and maybe 5m) which amount to "We took an OKTO, and put an RCS tank/structural element around it"? Particularly with FAR, it's kinda wobbly to have a 0.625m probe core in between two 2.5m stacks, it's ugly, and the existing 1.25m/2.5m probe cores are late in the tech tree. The 2.5m one also has a weight issue: it's 0.4t heavier than an OKTO, and if you don't need the additional electric storage or reaction wheel strength, it's dead mass.

I would mostly use it to send LKO boosters into reentry so they don't clutter up my orbits. My current solution is an inelegant mess: to sandwich an OKTO between two procedural fairing rings and strut the hell out of it.

Hmm, interesting. My initial reaction is "we already have a stock 1.25m/2.5m probe core", though I see your point. I'm hesitant to make something just to make it lighter and circumvent the tech tree. The one probe-core I did add, I made it early in the tech tree, but also as a heavy-ish nose cone that functions as a larger reaction wheel too, so that it has a viable niche, but is also limited in later-game usefulness. So far, that's where my thinking has been for early tech-tree probe cores.

Anyway, something worth thinking about in any case.

[The Yellow Dart]

Hey Necrobones! I see that you are getting no shortage of suggestions but I'm gonna throw some more out there anyway:

In keeping with the "stock code only" theme of your 0-point fairings, would it be possible to make "robotic" parts using only stock code? Nothing complicated or adjustable like IR, I am just thinking of a simple hinge mechanism that can fold out at a right angle, essentially like taking a stock landing leg and putting an attachment on it, allowing you to, say, build a long boom with 2 Gigantors on the end that still fits in a fairing (I'm thinking of Scott Manley's solar satellites that folded up like origami). I won't be surprised if this can't be done (no idea about coding myself) as I would have expected to have seen it done before now.

Also, another stock area that I feel could use some more meat to it would be structural girders and plates. I would definitely use some larger diameter and longer modular struts for station building, etc. Also lots of people seem to use the plates for building large scifi ships, it might be good to have some octagonal and/or hexagonal plates and maybe some triangle various sizes of triangles to fill in gaps and such.

Thanks!

[Starman4308]

Hmm, interesting. My initial reaction is "we already have a stock 1.25m/2.5m probe core", though I see your point. I'm hesitant to make something just to make it lighter and circumvent the tech tree. The one probe-core I did add, I made it early in the tech tree, but also as a heavy-ish nose cone that functions as a larger reaction wheel too, so that it has a viable niche, but is also limited in later-game usefulness. So far, that's where my thinking has been for early tech-tree probe cores.

Anyway, something worth thinking about in any case.

I suppose. My thought process was "How hard can it be to just stuff random stuff around a probe body", but there are sillier things in the KSP tech tree. I wound up putting a few small, cylindrical procedural batteries in a ring around the bottom, and strutting them to the top, because the interior struts in the fairing weren't enough to prevent wobble.

[biohazard15]

Just tried it, and I like it! Keep up the good work!

[E.Nygma]

More like a redesign (perhaps something a bit more technical, like a particle accelerator?) and optical diversification in 0.625 and 1.25 form factors as well as enabling autoshrouds, maybe a new glowing effect, maybe a custom decoupler... just from the top of my head...

[Red Iron Crown]

Something that does occur to me though, is that if I start looking into Mk.2 spaceplane gaps, is that it could potentially stand on its own as a spaceplane enhancement pack (Spaceplane Plus Plus?? lol). MRS so far is mainly a rocket extension pack.

That's an interesting point. Some players are all-spaceplane and others are all-rocket, so it might make sense to split them up. It is more work for you to maintain though. More astute players will be able to delete whatever parts don't interest them, but that's not overly newb friendly.

Also, your signature only has so much room for links to your mods....

[NecroBones]

I suppose. My thought process was "How hard can it be to just stuff random stuff around a probe body", but there are sillier things in the KSP tech tree. I wound up putting a few small, cylindrical procedural batteries in a ring around the bottom, and strutting them to the top, because the interior struts in the fairing weren't enough to prevent wobble.

Interesting, yeah, I'll certainly keep it in mind. I'm not against doing probe cores; I just want to be sure it fills a useful gap (or at least is visually different enough to be "cool" in its own right).

Just tried it, and I like it! Keep up the good work!

thanks, glad you like it!

More like a redesign (perhaps something a bit more technical, like a particle accelerator?) and optical diversification in 0.625 and 1.25 form factors as well as enabling autoshrouds, maybe a new glowing effect, maybe a custom decoupler... just from the top of my head...

It's true, the 0.625 stock line-up is still pretty sparse, even with some of the parts I've already added. What I'm trying to decide is if maybe a 1.25m version of the ion engine would be more useful than say, an alternate 0.625 version. In general I think the ions tend to be under-used in the game, but that leaves me also asking whether it's worth expanding on that, or leaving it alone and putting my time into other things. I'll think on it.

That's an interesting point. Some players are all-spaceplane and others are all-rocket, so it might make sense to split them up. It is more work for you to maintain though. More astute players will be able to delete whatever parts don't interest them, but that's not overly newb friendly.

Also, your signature only has so much room for links to your mods....

Yeah, and I'm already maintaining several packs now as it is, with potentially another on the way (I started on a 5m engine, for that 5m heavy-lift pack.. As an aside, this could be very cool. I'm trying a 9-nozzle Falcon-9 style engine cluster). It's something to consider, but I do like the idea of one big pack, as long as it doesn't become a REALLY BIG pack.

I'm definitely out of space in my signature. One more link, and the forum rejects it.

Edited November 5, 2014 by NecroBones

[NecroBones]

Hey Necrobones! I see that you are getting no shortage of suggestions but I'm gonna throw some more out there anyway:

In keeping with the "stock code only" theme of your 0-point fairings, would it be possible to make "robotic" parts using only stock code? Nothing complicated or adjustable like IR, I am just thinking of a simple hinge mechanism that can fold out at a right angle, essentially like taking a stock landing leg and putting an attachment on it, allowing you to, say, build a long boom with 2 Gigantors on the end that still fits in a fairing (I'm thinking of Scott Manley's solar satellites that folded up like origami). I won't be surprised if this can't be done (no idea about coding myself) as I would have expected to have seen it done before now.

Also, another stock area that I feel could use some more meat to it would be structural girders and plates. I would definitely use some larger diameter and longer modular struts for station building, etc. Also lots of people seem to use the plates for building large scifi ships, it might be good to have some octagonal and/or hexagonal plates and maybe some triangle various sizes of triangles to fill in gaps and such.

Thanks!

Structural parts, I'll think about that.

Unfortunately on the robotics side, that's not doable with just stock code. If you attach something in the VAB/SPH to a moving collision mesh (that is, a collider that animates, like a landing leg, or cargo-bay door), the part stays fixed in position relative to the rest of the rocket. Even though conceptually, you think in terms of placing a part onto another part, as far as the game is concerned they're all attaching relative to the root-node of the ship. That's why plugin mods, like Infernal Robotics, are needed to make this sort of thing work.

[Noio]

It's true, the 0.625 stock line-up is still pretty sparse, even with some of the parts I've already added. What I'm trying to decide is if maybe a 1.25m version of the ion engine would be more useful than say, an alternate 0.625 version. In general I think the ions tend to be under-used in the game, but that leaves me also asking whether it's worth expanding on that, or leaving it alone and putting my time into other things. I'll think on it.

Personally, I find the gap between the biggest size-1 engine and the smallest size-2 to be more distressing than the lack of ions. Try and make a lifter using your 5 size-1 to size-2 thrust plate and the stock engines and you'll see what I mean. The double-bell size-1 engine is the reason I still keep the KW engines around...even though the texture cache of just the KW engines is 50% bigger than all of ModRocketSys

EDIT: I just realized that's not true. I keep around the KW LFO engines AND the SRBs, because in my opinion, the stock SRB lineup is pretty lacking. Well, and they sound pretty cool too.

But that may be because I pair MRS with RLA and, between, the two, I feel like nukes, monoprop, and ions are now plenty.

EDIT: Crown's assertion about rocket people and plane people certainly holds true for me. Spaceplanes and I have never gotten along. Mk2 parts are a waste of my texture cache and that's why I asked earlier about making sure things were easy to remove. To me, that's part of the allure of MRS - the focus helps it target its audience, IMO. Kinda like the way the plane people I know wouldn't be caught dead without B9, but I've never glanced twice at it...

Edited November 5, 2014 by Noio