hoojiwana

[WIP, 1.0.5] Stock Replacement Assets 0.4 [25 Feb]

Recommended Posts

Anything new? I would like some cockpits next, your designs go well with Color Coded Canisters and Fuel Tanks Plus, and the current one is hideous with them, so I don't use it. Also when/if you redo the Mk1-2 cockpit, will you move the EVA hatch or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2015 at 10:09 AM, nothingSpecial said:

The problem is with putting them into stack.

It can be traded with multiple nodes, like in Ven's revamp and like in stock heatshields, but this ruins compatibility, can be hacky and can be hard in editor from times to times.

It also can be dealt with by completely ditching engines' shrouds and adding fairing part under them. But - yeah, partcount.

Now that the engine fairing can be disabled in editor, this is less of an issue. Allow the engine to keep the engine fairing it used to have no matter the mounting point size, but also allowing you to disable the fairing and use it for what ever size you want.

I am very much of the opinion that engine versatility is underrated, not overrated. Having more engines than you need would be just lame and heavy on resources: textures, models, and VAB menu clutter. But that's besides the point; no new parts will be in this mod as far as I am aware. But allowing for more possibilities within the nature of the stock parts in appearance surely can't be a bad thing?

 

Unrelatedly, I've changed my mind. Red or red+white on the SRBs does look the best. Standardizing colors can only help with the visual consistency of stock parts, though that might be cause for RLA's blue-colored monoprop engines to be repainted yellow (optionally or otherwise) and maybe then electric engines need a new color too. Electric blue, perhaps? Green? Maybe Grey? Anyway, here's what they look like (simple color change from the picture of the electrostatic ion engine from the RLA Stockalike OP)

 

Green is not used pretty much at all in any parts, so it could work. Blue is of course apparently used for oxidizer (according to the argument about the life support tanks in the IVAs and the tanks at KSC, but without the white around it the blue of the ion engine can manage a distinctly different look. Yellow is currently used, and is fine except it might conflict with the monoprop is yellow idea. Dark grey might be the best, because the xenon tanks are dark grey.

Edited by GregroxMun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2015 at 11:48 PM, Beano said:

I'm all in favor of omitting all the black and yellow hazard tape to all parts. Squad should hire you next.

Seconded and seconded! I wish all the decouplers looked like the 3.75 one. The only place I like it is around the hatch doors and things like that, doesn't belong on engines. 

As far as electricals go I would either stick with the existing colors to match RLA, NFT, and the stock batteries, or just go with grey. Almost anything else would look strange. 

And yeah, it sounds like the best poodle option would be ala KW/Apollo CSM and move the nozzle up as close to the base as you can and use the rest of the room for bell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6LExzgC.png

I am so happy to finally be getting these parts in game! And (thanks to this wonderful communities excellent tutorials) the EVA hatch and ladder worked almost perfectly first time and the glow looks pretty spot on I think! You may not be able to see it but there is also a flag decal right above the window on the door. Does the text need replacing with something better do you think?

So far it's just this pod as a standalone part for testing purposes. The RT-5/10 SRBs need a heat glow texture, the Size0 parachute needs an animation and perhaps some texture tweaks, and they all need exporting to the game for testing. Then its a matter of bundling the Porkalike Rapier, cooking up an MM config and doing a test release sometime this week.

@GregroxMun the idea of colour-coding was mainly for containers since different engine manufacturers have different schemes and such as well. If you check out the redone Mk55 Thud in 1.0.5 it has orange paint on it to show it as being a Rockomax engine (at least I think that's what @Porkjet was going for). What do people think of that idea? There's already arguments that it may end up being confusing since people familiar with RLA Stockalike tend to associate blue with monopropellant engines despite only two of them using it.

@Beano and @Starbuckminsterfullerton fear not, I won't be using yellow hazard stripes anywhere since they are ugly. Decouplers/separators will only have the little arrows that show which way they separate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Period. 

I APPROVE!

That parachute is so good. And you changed the ladder. I didn't like the red and white on the ladders.

It looks really nice so far. Can't wait to see more. 

By that I mean I need to see MOAR NOW!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Window lighting looks spot-on, and I love that the warning label illuminates. I think it's fine now, but if you're looking for different things to write there you might go with a simple, "WARNING: Pressurized Compartment", since it's kinda obvious that a hatch might open. I think what's more important is that every hatch has the same warning. 

I've given a lot of thought to engine color schemes since I need to come up with one of my own, so here's my $.02. 

  • The blue on the two big RLA engines is indicative of manufacturer not fuel type, as it was originally shared with that little .625m LFO engine as well.
  • Colors that indicate monopropellant in stock are either that yellow or plain white, as seen in the existing tanks and other parts, as well as RLA engines from other manufacturers. (LF is grey or white and O is blue or black)
  • Stock engines are a really mixed bag (one of the reasons I'm glad you're replacing them); all Rockomax engines are orange, but the rest of them are random.

It seems to me that the route that would require the least reimagining is keeping the manufacturer family-resemblance, and establishing one for parts that don't yet have one (poodle). Keep the color coding for containers, and differentiate monoprop engines by their lack of turbopump plumbing and the like. So I guess yes, paint the thud.

Do you have any plans for the radial decouplers? They are one place the caution stripes don't bother me as much, but I'm curious if you have something better in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMAZING! :D

But I remembered something. Didn't Squad say that KSP 1.2 is gonna have all the parts overhaulled? I mean, that's a long distance away, but still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UyQNUzH.png

Here we go! Check out the new OP for a download link and other info.

My MM-fu isn't the best but I think I've managed to make something workable that switches the stock parts over without breaking everything, could more experienced people give my patches a look over? My folder structure splits all the patches down into the individual parts that use them (for now), so it should be easy to see what does what.

It's obvious but this probably isn't compatible with Vens Stock Revamp. :P

Specific feedback/help wanted:

  • Is the parachute canopy model/texture okay? It's fairly heavy on the polys (for such a simple part) to try to give it some better definition.
  • SRB heat-glow effects currently can't go much beyond a dullish red. If this doesn't look hot enough to you, increase the response speed in the MM configs and let me know which you prefer.
  • I have no idea how my method of replacement effects drag cubes. Does the game use the cubes from stock parts or those from the replacement models?

Any other feedback or suggestions for future parts are always welcome!
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hoojiwana said:

 

  • I have no idea how my method of replacement effects drag cubes. Does the game use the cubes from stock parts or those from the replacement models?

The Drag cubes are generated when loading the game I believe. So if yours is any bigger or smaller than the stock version, It'll show. Now, If that is a problem you have three options; scale the parachute in unity, change the drag modifier values in the config, or copy the stock MK1's drag cube (search for the physics config file, then search for the MK1's entry)  and paste it into the config, overriding the generated cube.

 

Honestly the latter is the easiest and the most reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a problem with the Mk1-pod and the heatshield:

 

It doesn't quite fit right. The heatshield is too big, or the bottom of the pod is too small.

 

Otherwise this is really great. Love the style of these parts. :)

 

 

EDIT: I found the solution to the problem. The attach node is too high. If you translate down the heatshield, it fits.

PhWaW1x.png

Edited by GregroxMun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great Scott! That's the most Manly MK1 pod ever made! It may be the only one, but it still counts. :sticktongue: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feedback: I'm not a big fan of the parachute container model. While it's still quite a bit better than stock, and I do like the texture, the spherical shape doesn't really look aerodynamic, and sort of clashes with the sharp conical lines of the Mk1 pod. To improve it, I believe it should be more conical.

Edited by GregroxMun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parachute model looks great; the yellow makes it look very dated to me (like KSP v.17), if it were me I would do a muted orange.  I also like the part model, agree with Gregrox pointier ala realchutes so that it is inline with the pods would be great, and same goes for the larger diameter. (I hate that stupid stubby blue dome and it's nosecone friend)

Drag cubes are generated by the game based on the part's collider I think. If not, I have some drag cubes to make...

SRB glow seems fine and is easily adjustable anyway. 

Plenty of suggestions, but my biggest request would be to make the orange tank white, when you get there of course.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/01/2016 at 7:49 AM, Ven said:

The Drag cubes are generated when loading the game I believe. So if yours is any bigger or smaller than the stock version, It'll show. Now, If that is a problem you have three options; scale the parachute in unity, change the drag modifier values in the config, or copy the stock MK1's drag cube (search for the physics config file, then search for the MK1's entry)  and paste it into the config, overriding the generated cube.

Honestly the latter is the easiest and the most reliable.

It was more a question in general about model-replacement drag cubes rather than then parachute specifically. I did do some quick and dirty tests of the parachute model to compare it with the stock one and it seemed like the canopy was providing roughly the same amount of drag when fully deployed. My version does provide a little bit more drag than the stock when partially deployed, I wouldn't go so far as to say its "cheating" to use it though.

Are people okay with different drag? The differences will only be minor.

23 hours ago, GregroxMun said:

There's a problem with the Mk1-pod and the heatshield:

It doesn't quite fit right. The heatshield is too big, or the bottom of the pod is too small.

Otherwise this is really great. Love the style of these parts. :)

EDIT: I found the solution to the problem. The attach node is too high. If you translate down the heatshield, it fits.

Thanks!

I noticed that as well, the stock heatshields are all a little bit wider than the parts they attach to, this is less obvious on the stock pod since its got a bulging bottom and the cone ends higher up than the attachment point. Good to know there's an easy workaround for it though.

19 hours ago, GregroxMun said:

Feedback: I'm not a big fan of the parachute container model. While it's still quite a bit better than stock, and I do like the texture, the spherical shape doesn't really look aerodynamic, and sort of clashes with the sharp conical lines of the Mk1 pod. To improve it, I believe it should be more conical.

38 minutes ago, Starbuckminsterfullerton said:

Parachute model looks great; the yellow makes it look very dated to me (like KSP v.17), if it were me I would do a muted orange.  I also like the part model, agree with Gregrox pointier ala realchutes so that it is inline with the pods would be great, and same goes for the larger diameter. (I hate that stupid stubby blue dome and it's nosecone friend)

I did make the canopy white/orange rather than white/yellow originally but switched it over to better match the stock colouring, it is a lot less saturated though. I hear you both on the shape of the container itself, but what about the canopy?

38 minutes ago, Starbuckminsterfullerton said:

Drag cubes are generated by the game based on the part's collider I think. If not, I have some drag cubes to make...

SRB glow seems fine and is easily adjustable anyway. 

Plenty of suggestions, but my biggest request would be to make the orange tank white, when you get there of course.

Drag cubes are based on the visible mesh, not the collider.
Did you try out the SRB glow at higher response speeds?
That orange tank comment is a bit controversial. :sticktongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, hoojiwana said:

Are people okay with different drag? The differences will only be minor.

I hear you both on the shape of the container itself, but what about the canopy?

Drag cubes are based on the visible mesh, not the collider.
Did you try out the SRB glow at higher response speeds?
That orange tank comment is a bit controversial. :sticktongue:

Sorry for the formatting here, still getting used to the new quote format. In order:

I like different drag; I would rather it match the new part than carryover from the old one.

Canopy shape is great, actually makes the other ones look kinda bad.:D

My mistake...

I didn't; I thought the glow you setup was already good, but I will just to see.

Haha yeah, I think the stock size 2's are ugly enough that I went out and made my own! Getting rid of the orange is a lot to ask (people love the orange...), but it makes sense I promise!:rolleyes:

Edited by Starbuckminsterfullerton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, adding an override drag cube will force anyone who rescales the part to either nuke, or manually recompute, said override cube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vyt4fAL.jpg

An early look at a much requested part, the Mk 1-2 Pod! The black+white D shape between the windows is the relocated door, which lines up with the doors on the Size2 Lander Can, Science Lab etc. when stacked.

Changes slated for the next version;

  • New Mk1-2 Pod art
  • New Size1 Nosecone art
  • New Size1/2/3 Heatshield art
  • Possibly new Size1/2 decoupler art
  • Altered Mk1 Pod texture/emissive
  • Altered Size0 Parachute model (more aerodynamic shape)
On 07/01/2016 at 11:04 PM, Starbuckminsterfullerton said:

I like different drag; I would rather it match the new part than carryover from the old one.

Canopy shape is great, actually makes the other ones look kinda bad.:D

On 08/01/2016 at 3:28 AM, NathanKell said:

Also, adding an override drag cube will force anyone who rescales the part to either nuke, or manually recompute, said override cube.

No overriding drag cubes then, the values are close enough to stock that it shouldn't even be noticeable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that Black-and-white D-shape the final door texture or a place holder? If it's the former, I have to say I'm not a fan. I would go for something more like the Apollo door.

The rest of the part looks great, although I feel that the black on the windows is a tad bit too dark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, GregroxMun said:

Is that Black-and-white D-shape the final door texture or a place holder? If it's the former, I have to say I'm not a fan. I would go for something more like the Apollo door.

The rest of the part looks great, although I feel that the black on the windows is a tad bit too dark.

It's not final, just experimenting with something a little different, same with the circular hatches on the top and bottom (which you can see below). I'm not hugely fond of the circular hatch myself just yet but that may be because the grey surrounding it is totally unfinished. I think the round shape is a nice way to differentiate between aircraft cockpits and rocket command pods, but it may be unnecessary. The black was a touch too dark, and the previous screenshot lacked any of the highlights or shading to add some contrast, it fits a lot better when those are added.

As before, this is unfinished:

aYwNEVs.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, hoojiwana said:

It's not final, just experimenting with something a little different, same with the circular hatches on the top and bottom (which you can see below). I'm not hugely fond of the circular hatch myself just yet but that may be because the grey surrounding it is totally unfinished. I think the round shape is a nice way to differentiate between aircraft cockpits and rocket command pods, but it may be unnecessary. The black was a touch too dark, and the previous screenshot lacked any of the highlights or shading to add some contrast, it fits a lot better when those are added.

As before, this is unfinished:

aYwNEVs.jpg

Ignoring the critics, I love it. Finally some good sharp contrast in the rocket parts to match the slick black trim of Mk2. Please continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hoojiwana said:

It's not final, just experimenting with something a little different, same with the circular hatches on the top and bottom (which you can see below). I'm not hugely fond of the circular hatch myself just yet but that may be because the grey surrounding it is totally unfinished. I think the round shape is a nice way to differentiate between aircraft cockpits and rocket command pods, but it may be unnecessary. The black was a touch too dark, and the previous screenshot lacked any of the highlights or shading to add some contrast, it fits a lot better when those are added.

As before, this is unfinished:

aYwNEVs.jpg

Now I can see the door better, I'm more neutral and less negative about the door's texture, however it occurs to me that the hatch does not look big enough to fit a Kerbal inside. (Not with his helmet, anyway) But to be fair, the stock Mk1-2 also has this hatch size issue. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! I urgently need really want a better Mk1 Inline Clamp-O-Tron, if you did that I would be so happy!

EDIT: Also the new Mk1-2 cockpit is very nice!

Edited by legoclone09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2016 at 6:29 PM, hoojiwana said:

...which lines up with the doors on the Size2 Lander Can, Science Lab etc. when stacked.

THANK YOU.

It's looking good, love the black details. A little unsure on the door/ladders, if it were me I would skip the built in handholds and make the door texture a flush version of the hitchhiker/landercan/etc. hatch, it will match other mods and the rest of the parts better.  I never really find myself wishing for handholds above the hatch.

Don't worry about hatch size, they never look big enough.

As far as other parts, the stock heatshields are relatively new and thus some of the better looking parts in the game. I think some of the older parts (you mention the decouplers and I agree) could benefit more from attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this and Ven's, his heatshields and engines are very nice but still don't fit with plane stuff as much. Necrobones's FTP and CCC are very nice textures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.