TouhouTorpedo

Members
  • Content Count

    614
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TouhouTorpedo

  1. This is what I had in mind. Of course it's kind of tight with the angles to actually do this (25+60 <= 90) but even placing them slightly down the sides of the would be neat. Or just add another 5 degrees too.
  2. from what I'm seeing, can we only get the gear to bend in a positive direction at the top and negative at the bottom and vice versa? I wanted some side deploying landing gear, but it's looking like that isn't possible as flip inverts both of these axes.
  3. Just asked PorkJet about it on IRC, he's alright with the details being posted. The method you need for setting up the shader is as follows: Select the Material in Unity Material type is KSP\Bumped Specular (though if you don't have a bump map i suppose KSP\Specular is fine) Change the "Specular Color" to 196 196 196. at the top right of the screen is a small padlock, press the button to the right of that, then select the debug option. Now under Floats>Element 0> the name should be "Shininess", set the number below that to 0.4406686 remember now to press that button next to the padlock again and set it to normal, else you won't be able to export your part. And that's it! The "main colour" and "Rim fall off" apparently should be left alone and at the Unity default value.
  4. Try the cockpit texture. That's the wrong one. Although the cockpit may fail too since it includes an illumination texture, which this doesn't. Btw love the MK2 to 1.25m + x2 0.625m adapter. That's pretty much what I was planning to make when I started doing this, then changed my mind and made the nosecone. I've sent you a PM on the shader.
  5. For people having unzipping problems I'll need to know the program you're using and the platform. I've just had a friend of mine who is a mac user use both WinZIP and iZip on the file and had no problems at all. (He recommends WinZIP as the better program though)
  6. Sharing the source is a forum rule for posting your mods here. If it wasn't I wouldn't have posted my source at all, to be honest.
  7. If you're running a mac, then you need a third party unzipping program like Stuffit. The built in one on macs has had problems with my mods before, and I think it's because I use winRAR, but I'm not planning to change it since you'll run into this problem again for something else if thats the case.
  8. Porkjet took an interest, and thanks to his help this mod now has the correct specular values and light reflecting will appear correctly compared to other spaceplaneplus parts. The new version 0.2 has this change. It's also had a minor change that makes the flag decal invisible in the parts catalogue (as it'd just show as a blank flag anyway) You don't need to update, it's just cosmetic. Also, I realised I wrote SSP instead of SPP in the title. Oh well, can't change it now on KerbalStuff lol.
  9. For Subscribers in here I thought i'd drop a link to another mod just released today: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/98854-0-25-TT-s-SSP-MK2-Nose Pretty basic, just one part. But figured it was more or less essential if you make MK2 spaceplanes!
  10. Very simple quick mod I made messing around today. Apparently some people have wanted something like this, so here it is. A MK2 pointed nosecone. EDIT : Now with corrected shader set up provided by PorkJet! Click the picture above or the link below to get it! https://kerbalstuff.com/mod/308/TT%20SSP%20MK2%20Nose I've put some fuel in there equivalent to the MK2 short fuselage, it's got a higher drymass, but the drag figures for the cockpit its based on are lower than most parts anyway. Any thoughts let me know. Either way, enjoy it. Thanks to PorkJet for the shader settings, Taniwha for help with the mu importer/exporter and Krupski for making the MBM to PNG converter.
  11. I spoke to Taniwha and found the problem. The issue was that Blender 2.63 is not compatible and at least Blender 2.7 (Taniwha uses 2.72) is needed to run the .mu converter. The link might be handy for someone not using the conveter, so thanks for the input!
  12. Was just wondering, as I've been having a go with the .mu reader (and having no luck, it's just spitting out errors), has anyone managed to get a model for the new MK2 fuselage standard? It'd be nice to be able to make parts for it. It should technically be possible to rip any part from the game if the mesh vertices and faces are pulled via plugin to the debug log, then reconstructed into a OBJ file, but that's a really awkward way to do it that I'd rather if it's entirely avoidable.
  13. CC is an information tool. Just because someone can block it if they choose it doesn't mean it's dead. I'd still find it useful even if someone else can block it. It's as much a user information tool as a developer one. But it looks like I'm not going to convince the two of you currently posting at this time of that. I just hope if someone does decide it's really necessary to replace CC (and I really hope they do not as it is fine as it is now with or without this blocker) that they do not do something stupid like bricking the game to stop attempts to load out of date plugins or tools the developer sees as "intrusive".
  14. Only if, a significant quantity of users are actually using this. You think it's infallible right now? Even if it pops up do you think every last user who sees it thinks "TIME TO UPDATE" or that that specific mod is (and it may indeed not be) the cause of their problems? Heck, there's even been some threads where users have outright refused to post logs or even screenshots of their debug window but still demand answers to why things don't work. CC is a nice idea, do not get me wrong. But you're all acting like it's some magic bullet to user stupidity, and it's not. Compatibility Pop-up blocker changes nothing in that regard. Unless you think everyone has downloaded this and installed it to hide those nasty popups, to which I should ask again - did you install it? Has it rendered CC utterly useless to you now?
  15. There is really no reason why the drama here should exist. CC is an independent creation to Compatability Popup blocker. If a modder wants to create popups to warn the user and really absolutely must do that then they'd use CC unless they're absolutely and immaturely horrified a way exists to block it. (which would be really sad if so). Also again I still don't agree with your take on "but replaces aerodynamics!" so? There's been a lot of mods that replace or modify or surpass current game mechanics. I'm certainly not calling modders using CC retarded as you seem to be implying. But I am if they need to absolutely find a way to circumvent this tiny insignificant plugin designed for only one specific purpose. They could better spend their time on ignoring posters who haven't updated and complained (those posters will get backlash from users anyway who'll answer why it's broken) and just working on their mods instead of this stupid counter-counter attitude that's resulted. "no point in CC while this exists" is just ridiculous. Unless you think a huge number of people are downloading this to the point CC is circumvented on a huge scale. To which point I wonder, did you download this too?
  16. No, it won't. If any modder abandons CC because of this and makes their own warning system, then they are completely retarded. The only users who will download this are objectively against pop ups, so because of that, mod maker would make another method of throwing pop ups at them? GENIUS! This mod alone has no potential to harm the community at all. It's only the responses of mod makers and users that can do any harm here. And it's up to them to make a sensible well thought out reaction - ie if someone wanted to block pop ups, let them do so. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I disagree. I don't make so many releases these days but some time ago I had a lot mods out. It doesn't matter what warnings you put up, what information you post, how easy you make it to install. People will DO IT WRONG. and they will fill support threads with crap. Look at my post again and I make that part clear. I've even done it and admitted so. It's pretty rare that an update will seriously damage a mod, or even affect it at all, so CC often comes across as pointless nagging most of the time. Why go grab all your stuff again if it still works copied into the new version? (though, I have updated things if they obviously have broken ... though if they obviously have broken, why did I need CC to tell me to look for an update?)
  17. We'd only get that if the CC creators decide to go through a sad countermeasure routine when THE END USER installed this mod themselves to PREVENT the popups in the first place. If a user downloads KAS for example, they got it for winches. If a user downloads this, they got it to remove compatability popups. If the user downloads KAS again, they did not download it with the intention of the latest CC implemented in KAS to override the blocker and show anyway. So by that approach if this "counter-blocking" occurs, the CC maintainers would be the ones altering the users intent with how they play the game. Ie - CC would be the bad guys. If CC didn't get this feature, and it went "user installs KAS then pop up blocker" who's been wronged here? No one has. The user installed what they wanted and that's how they play the game.
  18. Can some of you modders get over yourselves? Seriously. I see nothing wrong with what Khathar has done here. "You're modding my mod!" there's been plenty that do that in one way or another, who cares. "But muh support!" individual users are smart people. The majority of the time they'll get on, make logical decisions and do everything fine. Unfortunately, users as a whole, myself included at times and every last one of you, are dumb. A mod that suddenly pops up to block a compatability pop up being there or not will not stop your inboxes being flooded with "why doesn't X work", Even IF you put information everywhere to inform people of it won't work. Trust me I've tried. What's really offensive here is the attitude a few modders have had practically saying they'll make their mods into malware that wrecks someone's gameplay if they install this. Congrats, you've just alienated your users into never updating your mod again regardless if they are or are not using this mod. Counter productive attitude, no? And on updating and forking CC, I really don't think making more variants of compatibility checker and risking those becoming incompatible with each other to cause issues is worth the bother when a plugin this simple can solve the issue if someone perceived this as one. TLDR; I've lost respect of a lot of modders reading over this thread. Sort yourselves out.
  19. The only parts I agree on being modified by Kerbal experience are science based items, and SAS STABILITY (not the torque) if an experienced kerbal can better tune the SAS so it actually does what its supposed to do and fights the rotation of the vessel so I don't have to do it EVEN THOUGH SAS IS ON, then that'd be lovely. Infact forget the experience part I mentioned there and just plain sort out the SAS tuning so it'll work in any gamemode. I still prefer the Original ASAS at times, even though it did shake some vessels appart with how vicious it was. Sure beats the limp thing we have now that isn't even slightly effective in anything but a vacuum with the throttle off.
  20. Looking forward to whoever fills enough crewtanks with thrust booster kerbals to VTOL with ion engines on Kerbin. Aside from that no, awful idea. If you're looking for Kerbal skills why not apply them to science output, like a geology specialist to boost sample retrieval gains, lab specialist to boost transmitted gains when a lab is available, or flight specialist for orbital reports. Saying that though, I haven't really found the science system fun at all. It'd be neat if it felt like a logical progression, but it doesn't. So I'd want to play contracts with cash and everything already unlocked, but I can't. And even if I pile on starting science, I still can't buy everything, so I have to mess up my starting budget.
  21. If they need another modeller they should just hire another stock-a-like modder imo. Plenty of good ones out there. They did this with Porkjet and got some pretty awesome results. Bac9's work (sure he's not a stock-a-like) was also pretty fantastic and same with clara. Some internal model work didn't go so well this update (MK1 fuselage's are so full of flaws it's untrue) and MK3 didn't even make the cut compared to those standards, but the external modellers work on the Admin building is full of inexcusably bad mistakes, Massively off aspect ratio textures, huge gaps in the model (how did this even happen) smoothing glitches, poor use of the texture atlas (did he even get to play the game to compare it to the other buildings?) and just seems to be a poor effort overall. I hope squad learns from this and next freelance they get should be one of the modding community, as there are plenty of capable people who's mods showcase their capabilities.
  22. Only one update has ever broken MMW plugin. It took one line of code to fix it, lol. A lot of the "it's broken" reports weren't actually reading the instructions, as it used to be using the older mod format that needed installing differently. Doesn't now though.
  23. I think those calling out on "shouldn't be stock" are making a bad flat assumption here. You're assuming the game should only ever have one flat configuration officially. Obviously that's a bit easier to maintain, but the game aside from some core functions is all the same format as plugins anyway, except compiled into the main dll. Having interchangeable or removable official components would probably help with the bloat issue, and it'd be somewhat handy for modders if some stock component had a better mod alternative you can pull out and replace it. Although it's a taboo here by now ever since DLCgate, this sort of method would allow a DLC model also. Of course, that doesn't make anything for Squad from older users who got the game some time ago - the terms we older users bought by say we get this stuff for free. Then again, a lot of new people rolled in since then thanks to steam so I doubt they'd lose much on it.
  24. Fair enough. I think I'll look at updating FAR/NEAR then. Seen this before?