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

[Alewx]

Yeah, I'm not too surprised that there are exceptions. I just always laugh a little at the huge monstrosities we build, and then hold them up radially. Heh.

---------

OK, so progress. Clamps are surprisingly picky and complicated for something with a simple function. But I managed to get some detail added without going crazy on the edits. I also backed off teh strength to 12x instead of 20x, and it seems plenty strong (check out the last pic below, with only one clamp still holding the largest tank).

I added girders/trusses, red/yellow fuel pipes, flag decals, and a few other things.

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-12-11%2021-09-27-95.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-12-11%2021-10-32-95.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-12-11%2021-11-00-72.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-12-11%2021-12-09-48.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-12-11%2021-16-17-66.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-12-11%2021-17-37-90.jpg

I love you, bigger better launchtowers yes yes yes, awesome.

Now only 0.9 needs to have a stable x64 and then I can get into action.

[Starman4308]

Now only 0.9 needs to have a stable x64 and then I can get into action.

It won't. Stable x64 will come (hopefully) when Unity 5 comes. I don't see Unity 5 in the 0.90 patch notes, and I'm pretty sure Squad would make a giant banner with fireworks all around for their Unity 5 patch.

Also, I'm a bit surprised there was a need for an upsized launch clamp. I tested launch clamps once, and no matter what sort of crazy rocket I put on there (at one point, a couple dozen KW Griffon Century engines), I couldn't get them to break, either by weighing them down or trying to launch from them.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Starman4308

[Alewx]

It won't. Stable x64 will come (hopefully) when Unity 5 comes. I don't see Unity 5 in the 0.90 patch notes, and I'm pretty sure Squad would make a giant banner with fireworks all around for their Unity 5 patch.

Also, I'm a bit surprised there was a need for an upsized launch clamp. I tested launch clamps once, and no matter what sort of crazy rocket I put on there (at one point, a couple dozen KW Griffon Century engines), I couldn't get them to break, either by weighing them down or trying to launch from them.

The x64 should be more stable then with 0.25, or they do not provide an x64 at all, and them I will pause until I get it as it.

The bigger launchclamps are cool looking, having a massive big rocket with some tiny clamps looks strange, also they do provide more energy right?

I also never managed to break the small ones, but the big ones just look so much better.

[NBZ]

Yeah, I'm not too surprised that there are exceptions. I just always laugh a little at the huge monstrosities we build, and then hold them up radially. Heh.

---------

OK, so progress. Clamps are surprisingly picky and complicated for something with a simple function. But I managed to get some detail added without going crazy on the edits. I also backed off teh strength to 12x instead of 20x, and it seems plenty strong (check out the last pic below, with only one clamp still holding the largest tank).

I added girders/trusses, red/yellow fuel pipes, flag decals, and a few other things.

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-12-11%2021-09-27-95.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-12-11%2021-10-32-95.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-12-11%2021-11-00-72.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-12-11%2021-12-09-48.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-12-11%2021-16-17-66.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-12-11%2021-17-37-90.jpg

Beautiful. You pulled it of very well.

Stronger launch clamps are sometimes needed. I have never had them break or let go, but they have occasionally been sliding outwards like overloaded landing legs.

I still think SpaceY's colors should be harmonized. What is it, tank-blue or launch clamp/logo-purple? (I'd prefer blue.)

I don't know if it is doable, but I think it would look really cool if those two horizontal sticks would come out of the back (pushing the "button" out) when released. At such strength, it is unreasonable for them to telescope.

Are the clamps not RAM-hungry? They seem to use lots of new textures.

[NecroBones]

Sorry if this has already been asked, but is there a HotRockets config by chance?

Good news, I took another look at it, and copied configs from some of the other rockets. Next update will have this.

Also, I'm a bit surprised there was a need for an upsized launch clamp. I tested launch clamps once, and no matter what sort of crazy rocket I put on there (at one point, a couple dozen KW Griffon Century engines), I couldn't get them to break, either by weighing them down or trying to launch from them.

The bigger launchclamps are cool looking, having a massive big rocket with some tiny clamps looks strange, also they do provide more energy right?

I also never managed to break the small ones, but the big ones just look so much better.

Beautiful. You pulled it of very well.

Stronger launch clamps are sometimes needed. I have never had them break or let go, but they have occasionally been sliding outwards like overloaded landing legs.

Yeah, there are some cases where larger clamps are useful. If you want to see one of the stock clamps fail, do a test with one of the 5m tanks and use a single clamp on it.

All clamps will have some issue with splaying outward at their feet, if they extend off the edge of the pad. On the pad, they should slip just a little. The collision mesh keeps them from moving too far on the pad, since they pivot around the pivot point at the top of the tower/post (a KSP oddity in the physics for these).

I still think SpaceY's colors should be harmonized. What is it, tank-blue or launch clamp/logo-purple? (I'd prefer blue.)

I don't know if it is doable, but I think it would look really cool if those two horizontal sticks would come out of the back (pushing the "button" out) when released. At such strength, it is unreasonable for them to telescope.

Are the clamps not RAM-hungry? They seem to use lots of new textures.

Actually they're all blue, with no purple at all. If it looks purple, it's the lighting. They all tend somewhere between grey-blue to grey-cyan. The tank ends are more cyan. And the clamps, if anything, leaned away from purple, as they had more green than red in them.

But having said that, I'm adjusting the colors slightly more cyan-ish (lightened blue, a little), and am making the pistons shove out the back as you suggested. This will be pretty cool.

As for RAM usage, no, I wouldn't call them "hungry". They're using a pair of medium textures, which are not really sharable. So I'd say they're using a somewhat average amount of RAM for a larger KSP part, or maybe the high-end of average. It's twice the amount of texture that the stock clamp uses, but it's a big clamp.

The texture-sharing really only works well with like-objects (fuel tanks sharing a fuel tank texture, for instance), since most parts have completely different requirements.

Generally when adding a part that doesn't share textures, I aim for 512x512. (As a comparison, I used a 1024x1024 texture for the fuel tanks, but with 6 tanks using it, that's not a bad memory footprint). Sometimes a secondary 256x256, or 128x128 is also needed if there is a different shader involved, like an emissive (glowing parts, like green lights or heat-glow). In this case, the stretchy truss system and pipes need specialized texture that are loopable in one direction, and have transparency, so this has two textures.

However now that I've made that, if I make another clamp that can use the same truss/pipes, that texture can then be shared.

Edited December 12, 2014 by NecroBones

[E.Nygma]

Yeah,

those clamps look much more believeable then the first design and much more interesting too! I want them....now! ;)

Regards

[NecroBones]

Yeah,

those clamps look much more believeable then the first design and much more interesting too! I want them....now! ;)

Regards

Glad you like them!

OK, some more screenies:

[NecroBones]

I suspect that KSP 0.90 is probably coming this week, since they're doing release videos now. I'll probably hold onto this update until then, and give priority to fixing some of the other mods if they need it. I can't think of anything that we know is coming, that specifically should break any of my mods. The only tweaks they may need, is adjustments to where they show up in the tech trees, since they're moving things around.... and of course Probe Cores and Reaction Wheels are being changed with regards to SAS, so some tweaks might be needed there in the MRS mod in particular. My guess is I'll be able to push out a whole bunch of updates at once.

I'll probably tweak the new launch-clamp price and tech-node a little, but otherwise they're looking pretty good.

One question: I haven't forgotten about the naming scheme of the "Falcon" and "Raptor" series of engines. I'd like to get some opinions on that again. I had a couple of different thoughts on this, as possible actions:

1. Leave it as it is now, with both being named after types of birds, ignoring the SpaceX association.
   
2. Rename the F1/F5/F9 "Falcon" engines to M1/M5/M9 "Merlin" engines, so that Merlin/Raptor names match the SpaceX engine names.
   
3. Rename the R1/R5 engines so that neither of them match the SpaceX engine names, even if one matches a SpaceX vehicle name.
   
4. Rename all of the engines with a completely new naming convention.
   

If we went with option #4, I'm not sure what we'd use. But these options are all on the table. Originally my plan wasn't to use the engine names directly from SpaceX. The name of the mod was a play on their company name, and the F9 engine arrangement was meant to pay homage to the Falcon-9, but that was where the similarity was going to end. Since then, I've worked in more of the naming convention. I may still copy their landing-leg design, as NBZ suggested too.

We probably don't have to worry too much about trademark infringement or anything, since it's a "parody" and it's not like it's a competing business, from inside the KSP universe. But where do we cross the line of social acceptability and responsibility here? No idea.

Just some musings. Ideas?

[hazens1]

I have got to say those launch clamps look so smexxy it hurts

Nice job!

[Norcalplanner]

NecroBones, I'd go with option 2. The F1 designation always makes my brain cramp up for a second, since that designation is so strongly associated with the S-IC.

[E.Nygma]

Well,

there are already the LazTek-SpaceX-mockups...but they are aiming for the realism side of things IMO. If you want the pack to be the stock alternative, then take the SpaceX-convention and run with it (aka option 2). If you want your pack to be a completely different brand without real world allusions, go with option 4. Maybe great explorers, people that got somewhere the first time? Would be fitting but a bit un-kerbal. It really depends what you want as your 'brand'...

Regards

[Jumpyyoza]

Man this mod is amazing, already used it to make a Saturn V Good work.

[NecroBones]

I have got to say those launch clamps look so smexxy it hurts

Nice job!

Man this mod is amazing, already used it to make a Saturn V Good work.

Thanks! Glad you like it!

NecroBones, I'd go with option 2. The F1 designation always makes my brain cramp up for a second, since that designation is so strongly associated with the S-IC.

Well,

there are already the LazTek-SpaceX-mockups...but they are aiming for the realism side of things IMO. If you want the pack to be the stock alternative, then take the SpaceX-convention and run with it (aka option 2). If you want your pack to be a completely different brand without real world allusions, go with option 4. Maybe great explorers, people that got somewhere the first time? Would be fitting but a bit un-kerbal. It really depends what you want as your 'brand'...

Regards

I have a feeling people will gravitate toward option 2. It's still a question worth asking here though. It's a pretty easy change to do.

[biohazard15]

Say, NecroBones, is there any chance you'll make a "short" version of 25-1.25 stackable adapter? I find it kinda too long for 1.25m engines - especially if you want to use a low-profile engine like LV-909 or Bertha from NP. The only one that uses all the space is LV-N.

[NecroBones]

Say, NecroBones, is there any chance you'll make a "short" version of 25-1.25 stackable adapter? I find it kinda too long for 1.25m engines - especially if you want to use a low-profile engine like LV-909 or Bertha from NP. The only one that uses all the space is LV-N.

Sure thing, I'm adding it now. The other diameters probably don't suffer from wasted space as badly, but the 1.25m engines vary in length quite a lot. The 909 is only about 0.6m in length, whereas the LVN is closer to about 3.2m or so. I'm adding a "short" version of the plate, with half of the length in the fairing.

[NecroBones]

Sure thing, I'm adding it now. The other diameters probably don't suffer from wasted space as badly, but the 1.25m engines vary in length quite a lot. The 909 is only about 0.6m in length, whereas the LVN is closer to about 3.2m or so. I'm adding a "short" version of the plate, with half of the length in the fairing.

Some screenshots below.

While it could be a little shorter for the 909, the half-length is good in that it still allows a lot of the other engines. It's right in the length-range where it renders some of the medium-length engines unusable with it, particularly the LV-T30. That one tries to stick to the top & bottom nodes at once, and favors the lower node, so it doesn't work. The LV-T45 works, you just have to be careful with the placement. And it has comfortable space for the Aerospike, Raper, and Turbo Jet.

[NBZ]

One question: I haven't forgotten about the naming scheme of the "Falcon" and "Raptor" series of engines. I'd like to get some opinions on that again. I had a couple of different thoughts on this, as possible actions:

1. Leave it as it is now, with both being named after types of birds, ignoring the SpaceX association.
   
2. Rename the F1/F5/F9 "Falcon" engines to M1/M5/M9 "Merlin" engines, so that Merlin/Raptor names match the SpaceX engine names.
   
3. Rename the R1/R5 engines so that neither of them match the SpaceX engine names, even if one matches a SpaceX vehicle name.
   
4. Rename all of the engines with a completely new naming convention.
   

If we went with option #4, I'm not sure what we'd use. But these options are all on the table. Originally my plan wasn't to use the engine names directly from SpaceX. The name of the mod was a play on their company name, and the F9 engine arrangement was meant to pay homage to the Falcon-9, but that was where the similarity was going to end. Since then, I've worked in more of the naming convention. I may still copy their landing-leg design, as NBZ suggested too.

We probably don't have to worry too much about trademark infringement or anything, since it's a "parody" and it's not like it's a competing business, from inside the KSP universe. But where do we cross the line of social acceptability and responsibility here? No idea.

Just some musings. Ideas?

Don't forget the new "D" 1.25m lifter engine! While not an upper stage engine, it is SpaceY's smallest, and therefore parallel to SpaceX's Kestrel. I think you should strive for three things:

1. Using SpaceX-style K1, M1/M5/M9, R1/R5 for mnemonic value (avoid confusing F1/F-1 and D1/Draco)
   
   
2. Not be the same as real life names – just as stock engine names are not
   
3. Kerbal style parody
   
   

SpaceX uses names of fierce raptors (birds of prey); Kestrel and Merlin, the biggest one being just Raptor.

SpaceY uses names of docile ratites (flightless birds); Kiwi, and Moa, the biggest one being just Ratite.

However, if you want a bird name for the biggest engine too (consistent, not like SpaceX), use Rhea.

While SpaceX's Draco (flying lizard) is an RCS engine, the Ejectatron could be renamed Dibamus (blind and legless lizard), just for fun.

[TABLE=width: 800]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]SpaceX

[/TD]

[TD=align: center]SpaceY

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Kestrel

[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Kiwi

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Merlin

[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Moa

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Raptor

(red-footed falcon)

[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Ratite

(Rhea)

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Draco

[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Dibamus

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Oh, and "Kiwi engine" – that just sounds sooo cute...

Edited December 14, 2014 by NBZ

[NecroBones]

Don't forget the new "D" 1.25m lifter engine! While not an upper stage engine, it is SpaceY's smallest, and therefore parallel to SpaceX's Kestrel. I think you should strive for three things:

1. Using SpaceX-style K1, M1/M5/M9, R1/R5 for mnemonic value (avoid confusing F1/F-1 and D1/Draco)
   
   
2. Not be the same as real life names – just as stock engine names are not
   
3. Kerbal style parody
   
   

SpaceX uses names of fierce raptors (birds of prey); Kestrel and Merlin, the biggest one being just Raptor.

SpaceY uses names of docile ratites (flightless birds); Kiwi, and Moa, the biggest one being just Ratite.

However, if you want a bird name for the biggest engine too (consistent, not like SpaceX), use Rhea.

While SpaceX's Draco (flying lizard) is an RCS engine, the Ejectatron could be renamed Dibamus (blind and legless lizard), just for fun.

[TABLE=width: 800]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]SpaceX

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d3/SpaceX_logo.svg/320px-SpaceX_logo.svg.png[/TD]

[TD=align: center]SpaceY

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

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Kestrel

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Common_Kestrel_1.jpg/171px-Common_Kestrel_1.jpg[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Kiwi

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/TeTuatahianui.jpg/180px-TeTuatahianui.jpg[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Merlin

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Merlin_prey_fencepost_Cochrane_cropped.jpg/300px-Merlin_prey_fencepost_Cochrane_cropped.jpg[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Moa

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d7/Megalapteryx.png/168px-Megalapteryx.png[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Raptor

(red-footed falcon)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Red-footed_Falcon.jpg/186px-Red-footed_Falcon.jpg[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Ratite

(Rhea)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Greater_rhea_pair_arp.jpg/306px-Greater_rhea_pair_arp.jpg[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]Draco

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Draco_taeniopterus_Gunther%2C_1861_from_Bulon.jpg/319px-Draco_taeniopterus_Gunther%2C_1861_from_Bulon.jpg[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Dibamus

http://www.pet-lizard.com/images/blind-lizard01.jpg[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Oh, and "Kiwi engine" – that just sounds sooo cute...

LOL, that's absolutely brilliant. I'm going to leave the Ejectatron alone for the moment (as I may add some sort of larger RCS/OMS engines, but we'll see). But I love it. I'm going to start working this in.

I can avoid making savegame-breaking changes by leaving the old D/F/R letters in the internal IDs (as much as the inconsistency will bother me, the player will never see it nor care).

EDIT: I have the name-changes ready. I remembered to adjust the textures for the engines that have the model number on the fairing.

Edited December 15, 2014 by NecroBones

[Z3R0_0NL1N3]

Socke is working on a 1.875m parts pack, in which he's working on a stockalike Dragon! Now... While your parts are awesome as 5m parts, could you make 2.5m versions, or at least is there TweakScale compatibility for this mod?

[NecroBones]

Socke is working on a 1.875m parts pack, in which he's working on a stockalike Dragon! Now... While your parts are awesome as 5m parts, could you make 2.5m versions, or at least is there TweakScale compatibility for this mod?

Awesome, I'll have to take a look at that parts pack. I'm curious if he's going to include engine-cluster adapters to fit 1.875m engines in clustered arrangements, under standard-sized fuel tanks, which might work nicely with this pack too.

But yes, we have TweakScale support for all parts in this pack, so it's good to go there.

Edited December 15, 2014 by NecroBones

[NBZ]

LOL, that's absolutely brilliant.

Thanks. This is a product of a couple of Heavenly (pun intended) coincidences: There are very few ratites, but many raptors. Elon Musk just happened to chose raptor names that begin with letters for which there are ratites too, and both raptor and ratite begin with an R. Further, over this weekend I have been studying avian taxonomy. And then you asked for suggestions.

1. The Merlin engine comes in a vacuum rated variant, which is used singly, and a atmosphere rated variant which is used in a cluster. You modelled this by varying the characteristics of the M1 vs the M5 and M9. (I can call them that from now on, right?)
   
   1. 
      
      However, KSP really has a gap in the 400 kN range. I would have requested a K1-Vac, bot I did some simulation, and it comes down to a very little difference in Delta-V over 2 LV-Ts. Maybe the K1 should be an all-purpose engine, in line with the LV-Ts, but at about double thrust and TWR, and at much higher price?
      
   2. I am not so happy about its red cylinders. I think you should stick to SpaceY "purplish cyan-blue". In the part list, the nozzle is sufficiently different color to distinguish it from the R1, just as like the Mainsail's gray nozzle is the main visual difference from the Skipper. (The M1 and the R1 can be distinguished by their adapter plates.)
      
   3. Maybe add a single large white letter to the cylinders in SpaceY font: K, M, R.
      
   4. Don't forget to update the description texts to include the new full ratite names.
      
   5. The R5's text doesn't mention that it is made of 5 R1s.
      
   6. I think a heavy lift radial mounted MonoPropellant engine is a very SpaceY-ey idea. Heavy payloads have heavy landers. The stock O-10 is inadequate to land even an Mk1-2 pod, and can barely handle an Mk1 pod. Call it SuperDibamus. I am thinking twin-nozzle, about 80 kN (SuperDraco is 73 kN), as there is a gap between the LV-909's 50 kN and the Mk 55's 120 kN. This will be extra useful from .90 when we can recess radial stuff. See the SpaceX SuperDraco below for inspiration.
      
   7. Which brings us to another idea: Maybe a heavy duty 5-way MonoPropellant RCS thruster called Dibamus?
      
   8. I don't know if it is possible to combine modules like that, but if instead of the above two, you could create a 5-way thruster with one-way (down) engine capability, it would be both cool and another "first".
      
      
      [TABLE=width: 500, align: center]
      [TR]
      [TD=align: center]Concept Dual-purpose SuperDibamus MonoPropellant RCS/Engine
      [/TD]
      [/TR]
      [TR]
      [TD=align: center]SpaceX Draco RCS in action
      [/TD]
      [/TR]
      [TR]
      [TD=align: center]SpaceX SuperDraco
      [/TD]
      [/TR]
      [/TABLE]

[NecroBones]

Thanks. This is a product of a couple of Heavenly (pun intended) coincidences: There are very few ratites, but many raptors. Elon Musk just happened to chose raptor names that begin with letters for which there are ratites too, and both raptor and ratite begin with an R. Further, over this weekend I have been studying avian taxonomy. And then you asked for suggestions.

1. The Merlin engine comes in a vacuum rated variant, which is used singly, and a atmosphere rated variant which is used in a cluster. You modelled this by varying the characteristics of the M1 vs the M5 and M9. (I can call them that from now on, right?)
   
   1. 
      
      However, KSP really has a gap in the 400 kN range. I would have requested a K1-Vac, bot I did some simulation, and it comes down to a very little difference in Delta-V over 2 LV-Ts. Maybe the K1 should be an all-purpose engine, in line with the LV-Ts, but at about double thrust and TWR, and at much higher price?
      
   2. I am not so happy about its red cylinders. I think you should stick to SpaceY "purplish cyan-blue". In the part list, the nozzle is sufficiently different color to distinguish it from the R1, just as like the Mainsail's gray nozzle is the main visual difference from the Skipper. (The M1 and the R1 can be distinguished by their adapter plates.)
      
   3. Maybe add a single large white letter to the cylinders in SpaceY font: K, M, R.
      
   4. Don't forget to update the description texts to include the new full ratite names.
      
   5. The R5's text doesn't mention that it is made of 5 R1s.
      
   6. I think a heavy lift radial mounted MonoPropellant engine is a very SpaceY-ey idea. Heavy payloads have heavy landers. The stock O-10 is inadequate to land even an Mk1-2 pod, and can barely handle an Mk1 pod. Call it SuperDibamus. I am thinking twin-nozzle, about 80 kN (SuperDraco is 73 kN), as there is a gap between the LV-909's 50 kN and the Mk 55's 120 kN. This will be extra useful from .90 when we can recess radial stuff. See the SpaceX SuperDraco below for inspiration.
      
   7. Which brings us to another idea: Maybe a heavy duty 5-way MonoPropellant RCS thruster called Dibamus?
      
   8. I don't know if it is possible to combine modules like that, but if instead of the above two, you could create a 5-way thruster with one-way (down) engine capability, it would be both cool and another "first".
      
      
      [TABLE=width: 500, align: center]
      [TR]
      [TD=align: center]Concept Dual-purpose SuperDibamus MonoPropellant RCS/Engine
      http://i.imgur.com/M5BR7R7.png[/TD]
      [/TR]
      [TR]
      [TD=align: center]SpaceX Draco RCS in action
      http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009/057_Dragon_separation_640.jpg[/TD]
      [/TR]
      [TR]
      [TD=align: center]SpaceX SuperDraco
      http://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images/128807/spacex-super-draco-engine_large.jpg[/TD]
      [/TR]
      [/TABLE]
      Hah, cool. I'll reply, point-by-point:
      1. Yes, they're the "M" series now, as the changes are already made. Yeah, there's definitely room to play with the stats. As it is right now, the K1 doesn't have a stacking/shroud option, but that's easily added. The weight is about 33% above the LV-T45, but with double the thrust, and lower ISP. The cost is about 3.68x higher too. If I bump the ISP up and add shrouds, the price probably should go up some too. I like having the weight a little higher so the TWR isn't truly double, but it's closer to 2x than 1x (200 TWR instead of the LV-T45's 133.33).
      2 & 3. I can certainly shift the turbopump colors back on the K1. It could be a slightly different shade of blue too. That's a pretty quick and easy change. Labeling may have to wait, at least on the larger engines. The M1/R1 both share their texture, so if I had a label there, it would have to be a decal.
      4 & 5. Yep, everything's all set to go on the renaming.
      6. That would be cool, for sure. I can probably do something like that. I'm just not sure which order I'll work on the new parts (still want to do some landing legs at some point too).
      7 & 8. I've been thinking about some large-scale RCS. Maybe something with 10x the thrust of the stock thrusters. After all, the stock ones were really intended for 1.25m and 2.5m. Now we're getting into some very high-mass rocketry compared to that, and the stock thrusters feel really weak at that scale. Now, the idea of combining it with a monopropellant engine is a cool idea, and I'm not sure if they can be combined either. My guess is that YES, it would probably work to have a throttle-controlled engine, and RCS in the same part. I don't see why that wouldn't work. So that might be a fun idea to try out!

[NecroBones]

KSP 0.90 is out, and it looks so far like I don't need to fix anything. I've split the engines and fuel tanks into their new categories explicitly, even though KSP will also do that automatically.

I'm just waiting for KerbalStuff and CurseForge to have 0.90 as a version choice before uploading, otherwise we should be good to go.

[NBZ]

KSP 0.90 is out, and it looks so far like I don't need to fix anything. I've split the engines and fuel tanks into their new categories explicitly, even though KSP will also do that automatically.

I'm just waiting for KerbalStuff and CurseForge to have 0.90 as a version choice before uploading, otherwise we should be good to go.

Can you at least put 0.5 on ksp.necrobones.com so that I can start playing?

[NecroBones]

Yep, if you want to go ahead and grab it, I have it here:

http://ksp.necrobones.com/files/SpaceY-Lifters/SpaceY-Lifters-0.5.zip

KerbalStuff and Curse are both taking their sweet time.