possible part merges

[Rodg88]

possible part merges

[zorg2044]

Should probably merge the Atlas A, D and F skirts too... The D skirt was separate because of the animation module and i dunno I felt since A and D were separate why not make F separate too. Wasn't really thinking straight :P

Anyway would be nice if the animation module can be disabled successfully on D.

[JacobB094]

I wouldn't merge the TR-201. It's more or less completely unrelated to AJ-10 series, being a modified LMDE. If anything, merge it into that.

[Rodg88]

It's another Delta upper stage engine however, and the models gimbal setup is the same, which makes merging much simpler. It's probably either the AJ10 or keeping it separate, the LMDE is quite different in-game in terms of performance, model/size, gimbals, and tech tree placement.

[CobaltWolf]

Don't go too crazy with it. The last thing we want is to make it harder to find things. Try to stick to parts that are basically identical except for a nozzle or antenna, stuff like that.

[JacobB094]

It might be better to keep it separate, then. Although, it would also not be amiss to reinforce the connection to LMDE, it should be together with the late model LMDE in the tech tree. IRL, Delta-P came about specifically because they had a bunch of thrust chambers about the right size and performance for a Delta, and they wanted to fly them off. TR-201 was literally the LMDE modified for fixed thrust, and with a different nozzle extension to improve efficiency in that application.

[JacobB094]

There seems to be something wrong with the AJ-260s in real names mode. I'm getting this error:
[EXC 14:39:30.923] Exception: Could not find matching module B9PartSwitch.ModuleMatcher.FindModule (Part part) (at <a3c2951fc74e4639820ef37d2d29f386>:0) B9PartSwitch.ModuleModifierInfo+<CreatePartModifiers>d__10.MoveNext () (at <a3c2951fc74e4639820ef37d2d29f386>:0) B9PartSwitch.PartSubtype.Setup (B9PartSwitch.ModuleB9PartSwitch parent, System.Boolean displayWarnings) (at <a3c2951fc74e4639820ef37d2d29f386>:0) UnityEngine.DebugLogHandler:LogException(Exception, Object) ModuleManager.UnityLogHandle.InterceptLogHandler:LogException(Exception, Object) UnityEngine.Debug:LogException(Exception) B9PartSwitch.PartSubtype:Setup(ModuleB9PartSwitch, Boolean) B9PartSwitch.ModuleB9PartSwitch:InitializeSubtypes(Boolean) B9PartSwitch.ModuleB9PartSwitch:GetInfo() PartLoader:CompilePartInfo(AvailablePart, Part) <CompileParts>d__56:PartLoader+<CompileParts>d__56.MoveNext_Patch0(<CompileParts>d__56) KSPCommunityFixes.Performance.<FrameUnlockedCoroutine>d__62:MoveNext() KSPCommunityFixes.Performance.<PartLoader_CompileAll>d__58:MoveNext() UnityEngine.SetupCoroutine:InvokeMoveNext(IEnumerator, IntPtr)
The gimbal on the inline variant's main nozzle doesn't seem to work.

[JacobB094]

Are we planning on merging GEM-60 and GEM-60XL? It seems like that could be done as a length switch.

[Rodg88]

Those are probably doable yeah. Could possibly merge 46 into the 40 too, but would require new mu files to make an inline 46

[JacobB094]

Well, that wouldn't exactly be a bad thing, though if you really wanted to avoid that, you could make them into one sequence instead - going something like -40, -40 inline, -46. That said, I do like the idea of an inline GEM-46. Maybe it could have a small tapering section on top, so it comes out to the same diameter as -40, despite being a little fatter.