[1.4] SpaceY Heavy-Lifter Parts Pack v1.17.1 (2018-04-02)

[E.Nygma]

Changed "F1" engine to have conical size-adapting fairings instead of cylindrical.

THIS...THIS... this ...is ... fantastic! A thing I've ever wanted Is ist possible to somehow make this a seperate mod for every engine-shroud?

but large docking ports are definitely a possibility

Okay, now you're getting your very own altar

PS: And thanks for the workable SAS-light!

[NBZ]

Just to get the pain out of the way, and start getting some feedback on it, I resized the fairings on the F1 and pushed an update.

The fairing lengths had to change a little to allow for using wider decouplers in there, and being able to hit the node you want. It's still trickier with the stock 3.75m decoupler going in the middle now, instead of the 2.5m one. But looking at the attachment point side-on makes it pretty easy.

At this point it'll probably be close to a full week before I can do anything else. But that'll give people time to play with things and see what they think.

0.2.1 (2014-11-25) - Quick Fix
 - Fixed logo path for SpaceY agency config (for career mode)
 - Changed "F1" engine to have conical size-adapting fairings instead of cylindrical. 

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-11-25%2021-21-16-00.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-11-25%2021-21-36-12.jpg

That looks amazing. I think you have two engine fairing "first"s now: Cones and multiple sizes. By now, I would love to have you re-do all the stock tanks with different inner-color for each size.

Thanks, glad you're liking it, as always.

#3: The main reason the center sticks down, is simply because that's what they did on the SpaceX Falcon 9. Why theirs sticks out? No idea. But I put that in as a nod to their design, since I was already copying the engine arrangement. This is the newer Falcon 9 arrangement, that is, after they shifted away from the rectangular 3x3 arrangement.

#4: The 3.75m 7-way adapter is something I've already done in MRS, and it shares the black/white color scheme. What I didn't do in MRS, but would be cool, would be to do that with a shroud/fairing so you could stack custom clusters... hmm. Idea.

3. Looked into it. This seems to be the most likely explanation: The middle engines of Saturn V's S-IC and S-II did not gimbal like their surrounding neighbors. This is not an option in Falcon 9, as only the center engine is reignited to soft-land the stage. The offset provides clearance.

4. Yes, that is what I meant. Currently there is no simple way to enshroud a cluster. Multicoupler > Engines > Decoupler is ideal. Compare Procedural Fairings' Thrust plate > Engines > Decoupler > Fairing holder > Fairing!

New points for when you resume work:

5. Don't forget to replace the screenshots in the OP and on Kerbal Stuff, Curse.com, and ksp.necrobones.com with your latest editions.

6. The x5 clusters' outer engines are not aligned: F5 is + (N-S-E-W), while R5 is × (NE-SE-SW-NW). Saturn V schematics from '66 had it the S-IC's 5 F-1s and the S-II's 5 J-2s arranged like this, but actual photos appear about 22.5° rotated. I suggest you rotate the F5 to be like the R5, the stock KS-25x4, and R&S Capsuledyne's stock-alike Quadroodle. (Would be more out of the way if some crazy daredevil would be coming down at an angle to to land on the center engine bell...)

7. Consider adding oxygen lines to the conical tank, so it can be distinguished from the structural cone even when assembled.

8. The decoupler matches the checkers of the cones. This means two of the red triangles are in the black, and somewhat difficult to see. Try rotating all the checkers 45° and all vertical stripes 22.5°. Then let the red arrows and oxygen lines be exactly on the border of white and black. I think it would both increase visibility and aesthetics. Notice the much cleaner look:

[TABLE=width: 500, align: center]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]MSPaint ;-) simulation[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Current design[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Edited November 26, 2014 by NBZ

[NecroBones]

I just recently downloaded your mod, NecroBones, and MAN... these heavy lifters store a lot of fuel AND give a serious punch to get a rocket into orbit. The SUper-heavy Stock Lifters I make are NOTHING in comparison to your beauties. Heck, those giant solidfuel boosters significantly help with lifting as well, since they do not consume liquid fuel, and the Radial Decouplers... MUCH better than the stock radial decouplers, which I keep having problems with (the boosters rub up against and DESTORY the back engine upon ejection because they don't separate cleanly/evenly).

Yeah, that's currently an on-going problem with radial decouplers. They were always "tricky", but one of the recent KSP updates made it worse. For some reason it applies something like a drag-vector at the moment of decoupling, such that the decoupler gets yanked down, which tends to pull the top of the booster inward. The harder the ejection charge, the bigger the effect. So those hydraulic manifold decouplers are actually the worst culprit, in my experience. With the need for bigger decouplers, thrusters seemed to be the best solution. Glad you like them!

If you do add 3.75 and 5.0 docking ports, A) Have a look at the KW Rocketry Docking Ring (3.75 and 2.5m combined) - it has a very nice skin too. I don't know if it is part-related, but can they be "Strong" ports? Rather than the standard KSP ports:

I use your MRS mod, but have held back from SpaceY because KW is pretty much the same parts (Pretty much all you need for a Saturn V rocket). Since R1 and F1 additions, and the amazing Separatron-decoupler node, i am considering simply having both for those parts (I'd use F1, R1 above the KW Griffon Century) and the Decouplers. 5m "strong" docking ports would just make the mod compulsory for the heavy designs i use =P

Cool, I'll take a look at what they did. While on one hand I don't want to directly copy everything from other mods... on the other hand, once an idea is out there, it probably isn't long before more mods use them, and there's no harm in consolidating the best ideas you can find. I haven't used KW's docking ports, but it sounds interesting.

THIS...THIS... this ...is ... fantastic! A thing I've ever wanted Is ist possible to somehow make this a seperate mod for every engine-shroud?

Okay, now you're getting your very own altar

PS: And thanks for the workable SAS-light!

You mean a mod that replaces the shrouds on stock engines? Dunno. It might be possible with MM configs and additional models, but I'm not sure. For most of the existing engines I've made that use shrouds (at this point, mainly in MRS since we're covered here), I'm tempted to go back and add secondary conical shrouds for them. I don't know why anyone (myself included) didn't think to try this sooner.

Glad you like the updates!

[NecroBones]

That looks amazing. I think you have two engine fairing "first"s now: Cones and multiple sizes. By now, I would love to have you re-do all the stock tanks with different inner-color for each size.

[NecroBones]

If you do add 3.75 and 5.0 docking ports, A) Have a look at the KW Rocketry Docking Ring (3.75 and 2.5m combined) - it has a very nice skin too. I don't know if it is part-related, but can they be "Strong" ports? Rather than the standard KSP ports:

I use your MRS mod, but have held back from SpaceY because KW is pretty much the same parts (Pretty much all you need for a Saturn V rocket). Since R1 and F1 additions, and the amazing Separatron-decoupler node, i am considering simply having both for those parts (I'd use F1, R1 above the KW Griffon Century) and the Decouplers. 5m "strong" docking ports would just make the mod compulsory for the heavy designs i use =P

I took a look at the KW docking ring, and guess what? They cheated. As far as the KSP part config is concerned, it's just a 2.5m docking port, like the stock one. It just happens to be 3.75m wide, in the model, but it's a 2.5m docking node.

Creating docking nodes that are specified as the larger diameters directly, should translate to a stronger connection. This is part of the configuration for the attachment node, and not the docking port type, which just determines which other docking ports it can dock with.

So I think it should be possible to make stronger docking connections (similar strength to the existing 3.75m and 5m part-to-part connections) and still have it "cheat" and connect to 2.5m ports like KW does, or flat-out make them larger ports that only connect to like-sized ports.

The downside of specifying them as 2.5m internally like KW does, is that they'll only connect to 2.5m-defined ports, and not any other ports that come along in the larger sizes. Unless it can work to put more than one docking node in the same part. I have no idea if anyone has tried that, or whether it works.

But in any case, there's a lot to work with here.

[Raptor831]

I have a suggestion for the triangles: why not make them a high-contrast color or something? Maybe a brighter red? Some medium gray, maybe?

Dunno, just seems simpler to me than changing the rotation on a few other parts.

In any case, I really like the pack, NecroBones. Looks good!

[BlackTalos]

I took a look at the KW docking ring, and guess what? They cheated. As far as the KSP part config is concerned, it's just a 2.5m docking port, like the stock one. It just happens to be 3.75m wide, in the model, but it's a 2.5m docking node.

Wow, something i never knew... The "strength" of it now make a lot more sense when i was relying on 2 of them to hold my 3.75m ship design....

Creating docking nodes that are specified as the larger diameters directly, should translate to a stronger connection. This is part of the configuration for the attachment node, and not the docking port type, which just determines which other docking ports it can dock with.

So I think it should be possible to make stronger docking connections (similar strength to the existing 3.75m and 5m part-to-part connections) and still have it "cheat" and connect to 2.5m ports like KW does, or flat-out make them larger ports that only connect to like-sized ports.

Thing is, as per the example video above, is that even 1.25m Rockets, attached with 1.25m ports to other 1.25m "pushing" rockets will be "floppy" compared to the same design where both ports are replaced with 2 Structural Fuselage for example.

Now having any of the new ports with the strength of a Structural Fuselage might be seen as "OP" though, but i could easily see and exponential growth in Strength:

0.625 ports are very weak

1.25 ports have the strength of Girders

3.75 or 5m ports have the strength of Fuel tanks/Structural Fuselage (I seems to me they are the same?)

This is also just comments if you're considering going down the ports route. I'm quite happy building pull-rocket trains or Multi-port Docking

The downside of specifying them as 2.5m internally like KW does, is that they'll only connect to 2.5m-defined ports, and not any other ports that come along in the larger sizes. Unless it can work to put more than one docking node in the same part. I have no idea if anyone has tried that, or whether it works.

You might want to have a look at this mod then: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/73005-Kip-Engineering-If-you-use-the-hubs-read-the-PSA-%2820th-Oct-2014%29

It seems doable, but as with KW, i have no idea if this one is also what to expect... Haven't tried this mod.

[E.Nygma]

You mean a mod that replaces the shrouds on stock engines?

Well, more of a very general approach along the lines of literally replacing/complementing every installed engine's shroud. Maybe adding a secondary node into the engines via MM? Or maybe a customized plugin combined with your models, another modder could maybe help out with this? I only have a very general idea about software development so I don't know which is the more feasible way...

[Helix935]

hmm i am having problems involving this pack, for some reason, none of the large thrusters and fuel tanks want to show up, just the srbs, two small thrusters, and a nosecone....

any ideas why please? i need this to launch a new fuel depot around mun

[NecroBones]

I have a suggestion for the triangles: why not make them a high-contrast color or something? Maybe a brighter red? Some medium gray, maybe?

Dunno, just seems simpler to me than changing the rotation on a few other parts.

In any case, I really like the pack, NecroBones. Looks good!

Thanks! Yeah, that's why I'm leaning toward just repainting the decoupler. I can move the stripes around on it, and match the tanks, rather than move the tanks around to match the decoupler.

Wow, something i never knew... The "strength" of it now make a lot more sense when i was relying on 2 of them to hold my 3.75m ship design....

Thing is, as per the example video above, is that even 1.25m Rockets, attached with 1.25m ports to other 1.25m "pushing" rockets will be "floppy" compared to the same design where both ports are replaced with 2 Structural Fuselage for example.

Now having any of the new ports with the strength of a Structural Fuselage might be seen as "OP" though, but i could easily see and exponential growth in Strength:

0.625 ports are very weak

1.25 ports have the strength of Girders

3.75 or 5m ports have the strength of Fuel tanks/Structural Fuselage (I seems to me they are the same?)

This is also just comments if you're considering going down the ports route. I'm quite happy building pull-rocket trains or Multi-port Docking

You might want to have a look at this mod then: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/73005-Kip-Engineering-If-you-use-the-hubs-read-the-PSA-%2820th-Oct-2014%29

It seems doable, but as with KW, i have no idea if this one is also what to expect... Haven't tried this mod.

Yeah, my understanding is that the docking joint strength is defined by the size of the attachment node, just like tank-to-tank joints, but will always be "weaker" since it's a temporary docking connection. But even so, just using actual 3.75m and 5m joints should be stronger than what you get with the smaller docking ports, assuming KSP is still doing the "right thing" with relative joint sizes.

I took at look at the mod at the link, and it's interesting what they did there. They set up the ports as single-sized ports of the appropriate size, as far as the stock game is concerned. But they also added configs for a plugin, that allow you to specify a range of docking port sizes that they can connect to, with the same attachment node. Rather than include the plugin, they suggest downloading and installing it, as part of their installation instructions. That's probably a lot more elegant than trying to put more than one docking attachment node in the same place, to make a "universal docking port".

So that gives some additional options to consider. But maybe I should just start with straight-up 3.75m and 5m ports, with the appropriately sized nodes, and see what sort of strength we get. They should be stronger than the 2.5m ports, including the KW docking ring, but of course that's assuming KSP scales it correctly with the node's size, like it does for normal joints.

Well, more of a very general approach along the lines of literally replacing/complementing every installed engine's shroud. Maybe adding a secondary node into the engines via MM? Or maybe a customized plugin combined with your models, another modder could maybe help out with this? I only have a very general idea about software development so I don't know which is the more feasible way...

Yeah, it's hard to say. MM can change pretty much anything in the part's CFG file, so theoretically, any parts being modified could have additional models injected, and the shroud-jettison configs altered to use them. My suspicion is that adding a new shroud (as a replacement) would mean disabling the old one, by giving it an attachment node so far away you'd never see it (like 1km outside the VAB). That right there would be two shrouds, and you can't add a third without the VAB menus glitching (I really hope that gets fixed with the overhaul they're doing for 0.90). I don't think there's a way through MM to completely remove a mesh from the part, while keeping the other meshes in the same model that are needed for the engine itself.

So basically, for existing engines modified through MM, I think theoretically a second shroud could be added as either an additional shroud or as a replacement, but nothing beyond that without running into bugs. That would be a pretty big project in itself with all the various existing engines having different sizes, and different positional settings, etc. But of course, a lot of scaling and positioning can be done in the part CFG file, so the number of actual shroud models could be relatively modest.

I'm not sure that's something I want to get into myself, at least not in the near term, but I could see something like this being done.

[NecroBones]

hmm i am having problems involving this pack, for some reason, none of the large thrusters and fuel tanks want to show up, just the srbs, two small thrusters, and a nosecone....

any ideas why please? i need this to launch a new fuel depot around mun

Hi there! Did you copy the "SpaceY-Lifters" folder into GameData, without renaming it? Most of the parts in the pack rely on the folder-path being correct, for the assets to load.

Otherwise, you can probably look in the "KSP.log" file to see if there are any errors that mention "SpaceY". It's possible that another mod is interfering somehow, but I don't know how or why that would happen. The most likely thing is that the folders were renamed or placed in the wrong location. However, if you're seeing the nose-cone in there, and not the other fuel tanks, I'm not sure how that could happen. The fueled nose-cone is the first part defined in the fuel-tanks folder, and the others are set up mostly the same.

[Helix935]

Hi there! Did you copy the "SpaceY-Lifters" folder into GameData, without renaming it? Most of the parts in the pack rely on the folder-path being correct, for the assets to load.

Otherwise, you can probably look in the "KSP.log" file to see if there are any errors that mention "SpaceY". It's possible that another mod is interfering somehow, but I don't know how or why that would happen. The most likely thing is that the folders were renamed or placed in the wrong location. However, if you're seeing the nose-cone in there, and not the other fuel tanks, I'm not sure how that could happen. The fueled nose-cone is the first part defined in the fuel-tanks folder, and the others are set up mostly the same.

i didn't rename it, i just dropped it in and also yes that is what happened with the nose cone and i am not on my normal computer right now so i cann't really check the log but i will

[NecroBones]

i didn't rename it, i just dropped it in and also yes that is what happened with the nose cone and i am not on my normal computer right now so i cann't really check the log but i will

OK cool. Yeah, the log will be the best thing to look at. We'll figure it out.

[NBZ]

I'm starting to think that would be a good feature, indeed.

4: Yep, it's definitely doable. The lower attachment node just has to be far enough down that it doesn't get interfered with by any of the engines' lower nodes, so that you can get a decoupler onto the thrust-plates node and not the engine in the center. So the fairing probably has to be tall enough to accommodate most of the engines that people might use in there, or have two separate lengths available, or something like that.

7: I agree, that will help... but I'll need to look closely at how this might happen. Right now, the texture space is set up only to apply the pipe-shadow on white-painted regions. With some creative mirroring of the UV maps, I might be able to redefine part of it for black. But that means altering all of the tanks to take that into account, because of the shared texture. Doable, I think.

8: I see what you're saying, but that also hits the same issue as #7. Plus, it would no longer have exactly the same visual symmetry (when viewed from the "front" dorsal side in the VAB for instance, which right now has nice left/right symmetry), or match the stripe arrangement of the 3.75m large stock tank (which I thought was a nice side effect in the current paint scheme). I'll think about it. But right now it feels like a lot of changes for one small goal (the decoupler triangle). The other idea I had in mind was just to re-stripe the decoupler to match the top of the large tank, which would also put all of the triangles in white fields, and would only be a re-paint of the one part.

Thank you so much for taking the time to discuss all of these ideas with me, and bring up some great suggestions. I think the mod is going to be a lot stronger for it!

I have almost 30 mods, but only three have parts, and one's never used, one's very rarely used. I never involved myself in a mod's development before. This pack is the only one I feel good about, and I am happy to help you with feedback and suggestions. Just let me know if it becomes too much.

4: I took a look at possible scenarios. We are talking about 5m adapters for 5 or 7 1.25m engines:

[TABLE=width: 590]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]3.75m stack[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 2, align: center]5 × 1.25m[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]Alternative[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Engine[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mass[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mass[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Engine[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mass[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]LV-909[/TD]

[TD=align: center]0.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]50[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]2.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]250[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Poodle[/TD]

[TD=align: center]2[/TD]

[TD=align: center]220[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Aerospike[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]175[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]7.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]875[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]– High Atm Isp –[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]LV-T45[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]200[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]7.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1000[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mainsail[/TD]

[TD=align: center]6[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1500[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]LV-T30[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1.25[/TD]

[TD=align: center]215[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]6.25[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1075[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mainsail[/TD]

[TD=align: center]6[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1500[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]LV-N[/TD]

[TD=align: center]2.25[/TD]

[TD=align: center]60[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]11.25[/TD]

[TD=align: center]300[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]– High Vac Isp –[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]3.75m stack[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 2, align: center]7 × 1.25m[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]Alternative[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Engine[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mass[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mass[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Engine[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mass[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]LV-909[/TD]

[TD=align: center]0.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]50[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]3.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]350[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Skipper[/TD]

[TD=align: center]3[/TD]

[TD=align: center]650[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Aerospike[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]175[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]10.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1225[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]– High Atm Isp –[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]LV-T45[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]200[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]10.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1400[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mainsail[/TD]

[TD=align: center]6[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1500[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]LV-T30[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1.25[/TD]

[TD=align: center]215[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]8.75[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1505[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mainsail[/TD]

[TD=align: center]6[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1500[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]LV-N[/TD]

[TD=align: center]2.25[/TD]

[TD=align: center]60[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]15.75[/TD]

[TD=align: center]420[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]– High Vac Isp –[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

So two heights will be enough, one that just fits an Aerospike (would anyone want a stage below jets?), and one for the LV-N. The Aerospike (TurboJet?) does not need additional spacing as it does not have a lower attachment node. I am sure the ability to easily stack clusters of Aerospikes will be very well received.

Fitting 2 2.5m engines under a 5m stack (visually similar to Titan II) could also be useful:

[TABLE=width: 590]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]5m stack[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 2, align: center]2 × 2.5m[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]Alternative[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Engine[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mass[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mass[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Engine[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mass[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Poodle[/TD]

[TD=align: center]2[/TD]

[TD=align: center]220[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]4[/TD]

[TD=align: center]440[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]– High Isp –[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Skipper[/TD]

[TD=align: center]3[/TD]

[TD=align: center]650[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]6[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1300[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mainsail[/TD]

[TD=align: center]6[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1500[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]F1[/TD]

[TD=align: center]2[/TD]

[TD=align: center]725[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]4[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1450[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]– High TWR –[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Mainsail[/TD]

[TD=align: center]6[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1500[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]12[/TD]

[TD=align: center]3000[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]KS-25x4/F5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]9.75[/TD]

[TD=align: center]3200/3300[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]R1[/TD]

[TD=align: center]5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]2000[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]10[/TD]

[TD=align: center]4000[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]– High TWR –[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Two Poodles is an interesting way to get medium TWR and Isp, and Two F1s is good for an intermediary upper-stage, but since two R1s would only be useful in a lower-stage, it does not need a fairing. So again, two sizes is enough; one Poodle-length and one F1 length.

7&8: No, no, you are right. Your stripes should match the stock. Here is an alternative: Have the conical tank (but not the empty cone) and the decoupler connect the black stripes from an upside-down tall Kerbodyne tank to your stripes (and possibly to your quad-coupler too). This solves both the LOX-line-on-black issue and the red-triangle-on-black issue:

9: Why is that triangle red? While the smaller decouplers have red triangles, The 3.75m decoupler is all B/W. Wouldn't it be interesting to have SpaceY's logo the same color as the inner-tanks, and have the decoupler's triangle match? Just got an amazing idea for when you get around to redesign all the tanks and decouplers:

[TABLE=width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Size[/TD]

[TD]Manufacturer[/TD]

[TD]Logo[/TD]

[TD]Inner-tank and decoupler-triangle color[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]5m[/TD]

[TD]SpaceX[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]blue[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]3.75m[/TD]

[TD]Kerbodyne[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]orange[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]2.5m[/TD]

[TD]Rockomax[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]gray?[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]1.25m[/TD]

[TD]Jebediah's[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]GREEN!

(because Jeb)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]0.625m[/TD]

[TD]Probodobodyne[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]red[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Wow, that was a mouthful.

[FiiZzioN]

Well, I thought I was content with my 100 mods I have installed. Now it'll be 101. I may have a slight problem that needs addressing...

Thanks for the great parts, man! They're always of great quality and this is no exception!

Edit: I should also say thank you, thank you, thank you for having the textures line up unlike the NSA ARM pack's 3.75 parts! Just the little things like that makes all the difference!

Edited November 28, 2014 by FiiZzioN

[Helix935]

Hello NecroBones i have the output log although please ignore that it was part of a crash report, that was from completely different reasons known as too much mods

output log

[NecroBones]

I have almost 30 mods, but only three have parts, and one's never used, one's very rarely used. I never involved myself in a mod's development before. This pack is the only one I feel good about, and I am happy to help you with feedback and suggestions. Just let me know if it becomes too much.

4: I took a look at possible scenarios. We are talking about 5m adapters for 5 or 7 1.25m engines:

http://i.imgur.com/y9prdke.png

[TABLE=width: 590]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]3.75m stack[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 2, align: center]5 × 1.25m[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]Alternative[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Engine[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mass[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mass[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Engine[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mass[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]LV-909[/TD]

[TD=align: center]0.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]50[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]2.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]250[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Poodle[/TD]

[TD=align: center]2[/TD]

[TD=align: center]220[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Aerospike[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]175[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]7.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]875[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]– High Atm Isp –[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]LV-T45[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]200[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]7.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1000[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mainsail[/TD]

[TD=align: center]6[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1500[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]LV-T30[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1.25[/TD]

[TD=align: center]215[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]6.25[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1075[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mainsail[/TD]

[TD=align: center]6[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1500[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]LV-N[/TD]

[TD=align: center]2.25[/TD]

[TD=align: center]60[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]11.25[/TD]

[TD=align: center]300[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]– High Vac Isp –[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]3.75m stack[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 2, align: center]7 × 1.25m[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]Alternative[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Engine[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mass[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mass[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Engine[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mass[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]LV-909[/TD]

[TD=align: center]0.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]50[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]3.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]350[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Skipper[/TD]

[TD=align: center]3[/TD]

[TD=align: center]650[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Aerospike[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]175[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]10.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1225[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]– High Atm Isp –[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]LV-T45[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]200[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]10.5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1400[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mainsail[/TD]

[TD=align: center]6[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1500[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]LV-T30[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1.25[/TD]

[TD=align: center]215[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]8.75[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1505[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mainsail[/TD]

[TD=align: center]6[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1500[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]LV-N[/TD]

[TD=align: center]2.25[/TD]

[TD=align: center]60[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]15.75[/TD]

[TD=align: center]420[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]– High Vac Isp –[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

So two heights will be enough, one that just fits an Aerospike (would anyone want a stage below jets?), and one for the LV-N. The Aerospike (TurboJet?) does not need additional spacing as it does not have a lower attachment node. I am sure the ability to easily stack clusters of Aerospikes will be very well received.

Fitting 2 2.5m engines under a 5m stack (visually similar to Titan II) could also be useful:

http://i.imgur.com/I24UDVI.png

[TABLE=width: 590]

[TR]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]5m stack[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 2, align: center]2 × 2.5m[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]Alternative[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Engine[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mass[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mass[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Engine[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mass[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Thrust[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Poodle[/TD]

[TD=align: center]2[/TD]

[TD=align: center]220[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]4[/TD]

[TD=align: center]440[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]– High Isp –[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Skipper[/TD]

[TD=align: center]3[/TD]

[TD=align: center]650[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]6[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1300[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mainsail[/TD]

[TD=align: center]6[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1500[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]F1[/TD]

[TD=align: center]2[/TD]

[TD=align: center]725[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]4[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1450[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]– High TWR –[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Mainsail[/TD]

[TD=align: center]6[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1500[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]12[/TD]

[TD=align: center]3000[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]KS-25x4/F5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]9.75[/TD]

[TD=align: center]3200/3300[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]R1[/TD]

[TD=align: center]5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]2000[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]10[/TD]

[TD=align: center]4000[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=colspan: 3, align: center]– High TWR –[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Two Poodles is an interesting way to get medium TWR and Isp, and Two F1s is good for an intermediary upper-stage, but since two R1s would only be useful in a lower-stage, it does not need a fairing. So again, two sizes is enough; one Poodle-length and one F1 length.

7&8: No, no, you are right. Your stripes should match the stock. Here is an alternative: Have the conical tank (but not the empty cone) and the decoupler connect the black stripes from an upside-down tall Kerbodyne tank to your stripes (and possibly to your quad-coupler too). This solves both the LOX-line-on-black issue and the red-triangle-on-black issue:

http://i.imgur.com/eHkAel0.png

9: Why is that triangle red? While the smaller decouplers have red triangles, The 3.75m decoupler is all B/W. Wouldn't it be interesting to have SpaceY's logo the same color as the inner-tanks, and have the decoupler's triangle match? Just got an amazing idea for when you get around to redesign all the tanks and decouplers:

[TABLE=width: 500]

[TR]

[TD]Size[/TD]

[TD]Manufacturer[/TD]

[TD]Logo[/TD]

[TD]Inner-tank and decoupler-triangle color[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]5m[/TD]

[TD]SpaceX[/TD]

[TD]http://media-curse.cursecdn.com/attachments/thumbnails/132/275/190/130/922fdefa00762d1b88046fb098b39d7f.jpeg[/TD]

[TD]blue[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]3.75m[/TD]

[TD]Kerbodyne[/TD]

[TD]http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/w/images/thumb/f/fa/Kerbodyne.png/180px-Kerbodyne.png[/TD]

[TD]orange[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]2.5m[/TD]

[TD]Rockomax[/TD]

[TD]http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/w/images/thumb/b/b5/Rockomax.png/180px-Rockomax.png[/TD]

[TD]gray?[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]1.25m[/TD]

[TD]Jebediah's[/TD]

[TD]http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/w/images/thumb/b/b4/JebsJunkyard.png/180px-JebsJunkyard.png[/TD]

[TD]GREEN!

(because Jeb)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]0.625m[/TD]

[TD]Probodobodyne[/TD]

[TD]http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/w/images/thumb/d/d6/Probodobodyne_Inc.png/180px-Probodobodyne_Inc.png[/TD]

[TD]red[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Wow, that was a mouthful.

Wow, awesome. I'll have more time to reply in depth later (borrowing a computer right now), but it sounds pretty good.

Well, I thought I was content with my 100 mods I have installed. Now it'll be 101. I may have a slight problem that needs addressing...

Thanks for the great parts, man! They're always of great quality and this is no exception!

Edit: I should also say thank you, thank you, thank you for having the textures line up unlike the NSA ARM pack's 3.75 parts! Just the little things like that makes all the difference!

Glad you like it! Awesome.

Hello NecroBones i have the output log although please ignore that it was part of a crash report, that was from completely different reasons known as too much mods

output log

Hmm, I don't see anything wrong so far. I'm on a borrowed laptop right now, so I'll probably be able to look better later. But at the moment it looks OK. It shows that it's loading the models and textures. I wonder if something weird is going on with texture replacer or one of the other mods? I have no idea what it could be though, since this is just a parts pack, so nothing should interfere in a way that keeps the parts from appearing, unless it's somehow corrupting the CFGs for those parts.

[NecroBones]

Hello NecroBones i have the output log although please ignore that it was part of a crash report, that was from completely different reasons known as too much mods

output log

Hmm, I don't see anything wrong so far. I'm on a borrowed laptop right now, so I'll probably be able to look better later. But at the moment it looks OK. It shows that it's loading the models and textures. I wonder if something weird is going on with texture replacer or one of the other mods? I have no idea what it could be though, since this is just a parts pack, so nothing should interfere in a way that keeps the parts from appearing, unless it's somehow corrupting the CFGs for those parts.

Yeah, looking at the log some more, it's definitely loading the models and textures. MM is even going through and adding the TweakScale parameters to all of them, as it should.

I have a thought, and this might be silly-- Are you playing in career or science modes? Have you unlocked the "Experimental Rocketry" node for 1000 science points? Almost everything is in that tech node, which may not have appeared before you installed the mod. Only the 3.75m nose cone and a few SRBs, plus the "ejectatron" and the like are in lower nodes. If this is the problem, then there's no problem, you just need to unlock the tech node. But what you described sounds like this might be the case.

If that turns out not to be the case, then all I can think is somehow it got corrupted, or another mod is interfering. I'd try deleting and then re-installing SpaceY (I've seen stranger things), and see if that helps. If not, then I suspect one of the other mods is mucking with the loading process (other than MM which we know is usually good) in a way that's causing some parts not to load.

Wow, awesome. I'll have more time to reply in depth later (borrowing a computer right now), but it sounds pretty good.

OK, I finally have some time today. Whew! I love what you've written up. Looking at the thrust-plate / fairing /adapter parts, I think the larger fairing on the 5m adapter will probably still need to be large enough to accommodate the R1, since it's available with the mod, and otherwise people will tell me the adapter is broken because it doesn't support my own engines. Since the adapter plate will have its own fairing, it doesn't technically matter that the R1 is currently a lower-stage engine (although we did discuss adding conical fairings to it). If people want low-ISP, high-thrust upper stage engines... well.. I guess that's their decision. Heh.

Thank you so much for doing these line-ups and working out the thrust/mass comparisons. That's very helpful, and it definitely shows some strong niches for the adapters. I'll definitely work on those.

In the meantime, I've knocked out a few of the "easy" things.

Here's the update list so far:

 - Repainted 5m decoupler to match fuel tank stripes, and have blue triangles.
 - Repainted 5m to 4x 2.5m adapter, to match fuel tank stripes.
 - Repainted 5m to 3.75m fueled adapter tank, to match the other stripes (sensing a theme)
 - Added external fuel pipes on 5m to 3.75m fueled adapter tank.
 - Rotated engine bell pattern on F5 cluster engine, to match the R5 orientation.
 - Raised center engine bell on F5 cluster, so that all five are mounted at the same height.

Edited November 30, 2014 by NecroBones

[NBZ]

 - Repainted 5m decoupler to match fuel tank stripes, and have blue triangles.
 - Repainted 5m to 4x 2.5m adapter, to match fuel tank stripes.
 - Repainted 5m to 3.75m fueled adapter tank, to match the other stripes (sensing a theme)
 - Added external fuel pipes on 5m to 3.75m fueled adapter tank.
 - Rotated engine bell pattern on F5 cluster engine, to match the R5 orientation.
 - Raised center engine bell on F5 cluster, so that all five are mounted at the same height.

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-11-30%2016-27-18-49.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-11-30%2014-10-07-78.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-11-30%2012-10-57-27.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-11-30%2012-10-37-44.jpg

That look amazing. Funny that you raised the center F5 bell. I thought about suggesting it, but refrained because I figured matching the F9 was a priority. But this does make more sense.

I can't wait for the update to be pushed! :-)

[NecroBones]

That look amazing. Funny that you raised the center F5 bell. I thought about suggesting it, but refrained because I figured matching the F9 was a priority. But this does make more sense.

I can't wait for the update to be pushed! :-)

lol, yes, I remembered our discussion about the center bells, and realized that I only made it offset in the F5 because I started with the F9 and deleted 4 engines. I figured I could make that one leveled-off, more like the Saturn V S-II stage, but leave the F9 more reminiscent of its namesake (the Falcon-9 of course).

I think the mod is gradually getting very pretty, in a tastefully more simple manner than it started.

[NBZ]

OK, I finally have some time today. Whew! I love what you've written up. Looking at the thrust-plate / fairing /adapter parts, I think the larger fairing on the 5m adapter will probably still need to be large enough to accommodate the R1, since it's available with the mod, and otherwise people will tell me the adapter is broken because it doesn't support my own engines. Since the adapter plate will have its own fairing, it doesn't technically matter that the R1 is currently a lower-stage engine (although we did discuss adding conical fairings to it). If people want low-ISP, high-thrust upper stage engines... well.. I guess that's their decision. Heh.

R1 in upper-staged in clusters? Should be allowed singly too then. Why not allow a stage below the F5? I suggest tuning the R1 for vacuum, parallel to the the F1, since there will probably be a Raptor vacuum engine for the BFR's upper stage. Also, put a conical fairing on the F5 to match 7.5m mods. (I think angle required to reach the 7.5m at the right length will just fit the conical engine-bays.) Really the Srf/Vac tuning should just be a tweakable like on Procedural Parts' boosters, but I know you don't want plug-ins.

lol, yes, I remembered our discussion about the center bells, and realized that I only made it offset in the F5 because I started with the F9 and deleted 4 engines. I figured I could make that one leveled-off, more like the Saturn V S-II stage, but leave the F9 more reminiscent of its namesake (the Falcon-9 of course).

I sometimes get confused by the names especially F1 vs. F-1! Your F comes from the launch vehicle name, while your R comes from the engine name. Being that the 9 Raptor vehicle (the Big F....... Rocket) doesn't have a name yet, maybe F1/5/9 should be renamed M1/5/9? If not, at least include this into the OP:

[TABLE=width: 500]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]SpaceY[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD=align: center]NASA (50% scale)[/TD]

[TD=align: center]SpaceX (137% scale)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]F1[/TD]

[TD=align: center]≈[/TD]

[TD=align: center]J-2/S-IVB[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Merlin Vacuum[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]F5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]≈[/TD]

[TD=align: center]S-II[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Falcon 5[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]F9[/TD]

[TD=align: center]≈[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Falcon 9[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]R1[/TD]

[TD=align: center]≈[/TD]

[TD=align: center]F-1[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Raptor (Vacuum?)[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]R5[/TD]

[TD=align: center]≈[/TD]

[TD=align: center]S-IC[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center](R9)[/TD]

[TD=align: center]≈[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]BFR[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

What is the R1 good for if you can't build a Raptor powered SpaceX BFR? But at the current engine-to-stack scaling, you cannot fit 9 R1s under 5m. This bring us to a different issue:

[TABLE=width: 500]

[TR]

[TD=align: right]Real Life Part[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: right]KSP[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Scale[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Mercury Capsule[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1.8m[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Command Pod Mk1[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1.25m[/TD]

[TD=align: center]69%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Apollo CM[/TD]

[TD=align: center]3.9m[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mk1-2 Command Pod[/TD]

[TD=align: center]2.5m[/TD]

[TD=align: center]64%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]NASA SLS[/TD]

[TD=align: center]8.4m[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Kerbodyne parts[/TD]

[TD=align: center]3.75m[/TD]

[TD=align: center]45%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Falcon 9[/TD]

[TD=align: center]3.7m[/TD]

[TD=align: center]SpaceY parts

[/TD]

[TD=align: center]5m[/TD]

[TD=align: center]137%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Saturn V & BFR[/TD]

[TD=align: center]10m[/TD]

[TD=align: center]SpaceY parts

[/TD]

[TD=align: center]5m [/TD]

[TD=align: center]50%[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Ideally we should have had:

[TABLE=width: 500]

[TR]

[TD=align: right]Real Life[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: right]KSP[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Scale[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Mercury Capsule[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1.8m[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Command Pod Mk1[/TD]

[TD=align: center]1.25m[/TD]

[TD=align: center]69%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Apollo CM, Falcon 9[/TD]

[TD=align: center]≈3.8m[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Mk1-2 Command Pod[/TD]

[TD=align: center]2.5m[/TD]

[TD=align: center]64%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Falcon X[/TD]

[TD=align: center]6m[/TD]

[TD=align: center]SpaceY F9 and F1

[/TD]

[TD=align: center]3.75m[/TD]

[TD=align: center]60%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]NASA SLS[/TD]

[TD=align: center]8.4m[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Kerbodyne parts[/TD]

[TD=align: center]5m[/TD]

[TD=align: center]59%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Saturn V & BFR[/TD]

[TD=align: center]10m[/TD]

[TD=align: center]SpaceY F5 and F9

[/TD]

[TD=align: center]7.5m [/TD]

[TD=align: center]75%[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Too bad about that ARM pack... Guess you'll have to redo all of KSP!

However, notice that even if one were to ignore the scaling issue, it is impossible to build a Falcon 9 using SpaceY parts. The upper stage is the same width as the lower stage, just as on the Saturn V. I think you'd better keep it the way it is. It is a nice pack extending KSP to 5m, inspired by SpaceX and Saturn V, but not in any way intended to facilitate replicas.

9-1 configurations in each stack size: 7.5m, 5, 3.75m, 2.5m:

SpaceX's Falcon 9 should be the one on the far right, at 60% scale, whereas the BFR should be the one on the far left, at 75% scale.

[NecroBones]

R1 in upper-staged in clusters? Should be allowed singly too then. Why not allow a stage below the F5? I suggest tuning the R1 for vacuum, parallel to the the F1, since there will probably be a Raptor vacuum engine for the BFR's upper stage. Also, put a conical fairing on the F5 to match 7.5m mods. (I think angle required to reach the 7.5m at the right length will just fit the conical engine-bays.) Really the Srf/Vac tuning should just be a tweakable like on Procedural Parts' boosters, but I know you don't want plug-ins.

I sometimes get confused by the names especially F1 vs. F-1! Your F comes from the launch vehicle name, while your R comes from the engine name. Being that the 9 Raptor vehicle (the Big F....... Rocket) doesn't have a name yet, maybe F1/5/9 should be renamed M1/5/9? If not, at least include this into the OP:

--tables trimmed--

What is the R1 good for if you can't build a Raptor powered SpaceX BFR? But at the current engine-to-stack scaling, you cannot fit 9 R1s under 5m. This bring us to a different issue:

--tables trimmed--

Too bad about that ARM pack... Guess you'll have to redo all of KSP!

However, notice that even if one were to ignore the scaling issue, it is impossible to build a Falcon 9 using SpaceY parts. The upper stage is the same width as the lower stage, just as on the Saturn V. I think you'd better keep it the way it is. It is a nice pack extending KSP to 5m, inspired by SpaceX and Saturn V, but not in any way intended to facilitate replicas.

9-1 configurations in each stack size: 7.5m, 5, 3.75m, 2.5m:

http://i.imgur.com/qBEq4lv.png

SpaceX's Falcon 9 should be the one on the far right, at 60% scale, whereas the BFR should be the one on the far left, at 75% scale.

The naming shouldn't be too confusing, since it's just the number of which engine type... but yeah. I forgot that SpaceX made a "Raptor" engine in addition to the "Falcon". I picked "R" for the larger engines randomly, and later decided on "Raptor" because it sounded cool, and then realized there already was a Raptor from SpaceX. That was a bit accidental, but it was probably rattling around in my subconscious. The "Falcon" (F series) engines were of course named intentionally after the Falcon-1 and Falcon-9 vehicles, rather than the Merlin engines. But yeah, since there's an F-1 from Rocketdyne, it does get a little confusing on that side too.

I could see renaming both, or switching to "M" instead of "F" for consistency. I'll think on it.

I know what you mean about the scale. I started with the F-series engines, before looking up the SpaceX Falcon 9 dimensions. Having gotten used to everything in stock being much smaller than their real world counterparts, and knowing we had a long way to go to get to the 10m size of a Saturn V, it never occurred to me that the 5m engine cluster would actually be BIGGER than the real world counterpart. I discovered that shortly after making the engine.

Of course, the mass ratios of most parts, including fuel tanks, are less favorable than the real world examples, so it would be very hard to construct something of the size of the real rockets, as you said.

It's just not feasible to do a true simulation without redesigning everything in the game.

BTW, the F5 does allow stacking, with a straight cylindrical shroud. Only the F9, R5, and R1 do not currently, and I'm considering adding stacking to the R1, conically like the F1.

lol, BFR.

I'm probably not going to do any 9-way clusters anymore, since it was just tedious. I haven't ruled out 7 though.

Edited December 2, 2014 by NecroBones

[Red Iron Crown]

Honestly, I'd prefer for the engines to be individual parts with separate cluster adapters, like the ones you made for MRS. It hurts the part count a bit but is much more flexible.

(Not a demand or request, just some feedback. I've been using the parts as-is in heavy lifters with good results.)

[NecroBones]

Honestly, I'd prefer for the engines to be individual parts with separate cluster adapters, like the ones you made for MRS. It hurts the part count a bit but is much more flexible.

(Not a demand or request, just some feedback. I've been using the parts as-is in heavy lifters with good results.)

Yeah, my plan is to make some new adapters. The tricky part is to do it such that it fits enough engines in, without making them individually over-powered for the diameter, to the point of obsoleting the stock parts.

This isn't a rebuttal exactly, just continuing the conversation:

Right now the individual engines feel pretty balanced, since compared to the other 2.5m engines, they make a trade-off with thrust vs efficiency. But it's hard to make an adapter big enough to fit enough 2.5m engines to be useful. The 5m to 4x 2.5m adapter is a good example. It allows the use for 4 of the R1 engines, but is roughly the same size as the R5 without the fifth engine. The R5 assumes that you can make more efficient use of the space by squishing the internal engine parts closer together than the adapter plate allows.

So to make the adapters competitive, the question becomes: Do you increase the power of the individual engines, or do you reduce their diameter to fit more in?

It seems that the best way to accomplish the balance would be to make engines of an in-between size, like 1.875m, and build an adapter system around that. Those adapters just wouldn't work well with stock or other standard-sized parts, but they could be viable.

Hmm. Something to think about.

[Red Iron Crown]

Hmm, another radial size might be trouble, if only because we'd want the rest of the parts lineup in that size and those individual engines would more directly compete with the smaller ones. If it is difficult to make work with one of the existing sizes, I'd say it's better to leave them as pre-made clusters.