Jump to content

passinglurker's random dev (recent release: Moar Mk1 ver. 0.3 now with engines!)

passinglurker

By passinglurker
in KSP1 Mod Development

 Share

Recommended Posts

passinglurker

passinglurker

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 7/31/2016 at 3:31 AM, Gaiiden said:

Second (middle) image looks good IMO

Yes others have said as much else where. I'm not sure why though. could you provide some details?

3 hours ago, ISE said:

Tweakscale cfgs?  

Is there a particular part and size you are after?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deimos Rast

Deimos Rast

Posted
Posted (edited)

@passinglurker

Just wanted to say I really like the tanks in this mod. Very well done. Instant classic. I'm not a 100% on the engines - they look fine, but a bit too similar. Good naming conventions though. I also like your humor, which is rare in kerbal.

Anyway, I made a tweakscale config - basically just 1.25m stacksize to all parts. You're welcome to it.

EDIT:

Question on the decoupler/separator - they have attach nodes, and srf bulkheadprofiles, yet lack the attachrule for surface attach. (1,0,1,1,0 > 1,1,1,1,0)

Spoiler

  


//MonoPropellant
@PART[monoStandardMk1|monoDoubleMk1|monoHalfMk1|monoQuarterMk1]:NEEDS[Scale]
{
  MODULE
  {
  	name = TweakScale
  	type = stack
  	defaultScale = 1.25
  }
}

//Structural
@PART[strStandardMk1|strQuadrupleMk1]:NEEDS[Scale]
{
  MODULE
  {
  	name = TweakScale
  	type = stack
  	defaultScale = 1.25
  }
}

//LiquidFuel
@PART[lfQuadrupleMk1|lfStandardMk1]:NEEDS[Scale]
{
  MODULE
  {
  	name = TweakScale
  	type = stack
  	defaultScale = 1.25
  }
}

//LiquidFuel / Oxidizer
@PART[lfoDoubleMk1|lfoStandardMk1|lfoQuadrupleMk1|lfoHalfMk1]:NEEDS[Scale]
{
  MODULE
  {
  	name = TweakScale
  	type = stack
  	defaultScale = 1.25
  }
}

//Decouplers
@PART[decouplerQuarterMk1|separaterQuarterMk1]:NEEDS[Scale]
{
  MODULE
  {
  	name = TweakScale
  	type = stack
  	defaultScale = 1.25
  }
}

 

 

 

 

Edited by Deimos Rast
Link to comment
Share on other sites
passinglurker

passinglurker

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Deimos Rast said:

 

@passinglurker

Just wanted to say I really like the tanks in this mod. Very well done. Instant classic. I'm not a 100% on the engines - they look fine, but a bit too similar. Good naming conventions though. I also like your humor, which is rare in kerbal.

Anyway, I made a tweakscale config - basically just 1.25m stacksize to all parts. You're welcome to it.

EDIT:

Question on the decoupler/separator - they have attach nodes, and srf bulkheadprofiles, yet lack the attachrule for surface attach. (1,0,1,1,0 > 1,1,1,1,0)

 

Thanks.for the typo I'll be sure to fix it in the next update.

As for your tweakscale config I'll link to your post in the OP. :)

and finally on the engines the similarity is intentional, but reluctance over them is understandable a lot of people have strong differing opinions about how rocket engines should look in kerbal. What I did was I took cues from porkjet's rocket engines (thud, dart, and vector) and made my engines to pretty much blend in on both rockets and spaceplanes (and as a side bonus they were easier to model because like other porkjet engines they were just a mounting base and a nozzle :wink: low hanging fruit ftw!). the hope was you'd still be able to tell them apart in the editor thanks to differing textures on the top and differing nozzle configurations on the bottom.

Edited by passinglurker
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Deimos Rast said:

@passinglurker

Just wanted to say I really like the tanks in this mod. Very well done. Instant classic. I'm not a 100% on the engines - they look fine, but a bit too similar. Good naming conventions though. I also like your humor, which is rare in kerbal.

Anyway, I made a tweakscale config - basically just 1.25m stacksize to all parts. You're welcome to it.

EDIT:

Question on the decoupler/separator - they have attach nodes, and srf bulkheadprofiles, yet lack the attachrule for surface attach. (1,0,1,1,0 > 1,1,1,1,0)

  Hide contents

  



//MonoPropellant
@PART[monoStandardMk1|monoDoubleMk1|monoHalfMk1|monoQuarterMk1]:NEEDS[Scale]
{
  MODULE
  {
  	name = TweakScale
  	type = stack
  	defaultScale = 1.25
  }
}

//Structural
@PART[strStandardMk1|strQuadrupleMk1]:NEEDS[Scale]
{
  MODULE
  {
  	name = TweakScale
  	type = stack
  	defaultScale = 1.25
  }
}

//LiquidFuel
@PART[lfQuadrupleMk1|lfStandardMk1]:NEEDS[Scale]
{
  MODULE
  {
  	name = TweakScale
  	type = stack
  	defaultScale = 1.25
  }
}

//LiquidFuel / Oxidizer
@PART[lfoDoubleMk1|lfoStandardMk1|lfoQuadrupleMk1|lfoHalfMk1]:NEEDS[Scale]
{
  MODULE
  {
  	name = TweakScale
  	type = stack
  	defaultScale = 1.25
  }
}

//Decouplers
@PART[decouplerQuarterMk1|separaterQuarterMk1]:NEEDS[Scale]
{
  MODULE
  {
  	name = TweakScale
  	type = stack
  	defaultScale = 1.25
  }
}

 

 

 

 

Hey, thanks for this. At one time I wanted more size variation in my hollow tubes... possibly for a large shroud around a station docking port, so ships would fly inside the station somewhat like in Elite and X, but I forgot.

 

@passinglurker I also happen to have made a config today; this one is for Connected Living Space. It was bothering me that the stock structral fuselage was passable but the ones in Moar Mk1 weren't. This uses the same rules as how CLS configures the stock fuselage.

This also makes the separators passable, since they're also hollow and free of sharp edges for Kerbals to hurt themselves on, giving them a unique function besides looking nice (none of the other separators are passable unless manually configured). I disabled surface passage for them though, since that would look weird on such short parts, unlikely though it is that anyone would contrive a design making use of them in this way.

  

@PART[strQuadrupleMk1]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace
		passable = true
		surfaceAttachmentsPassable = true
	}
}

@PART[strStandardMk1]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace
		passable = true
		surfaceAttachmentsPassable = true
	}
}

@PART[decouplerQuarterMk1]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace
		passable = true
		surfaceAttachmentsPassable = false
	}
}

@PART[separaterQuarterMk1]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace
		passable = true
		surfaceAttachmentsPassable = false
	}
}

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
legoclone09

legoclone09

Posted
Posted

Loving the batteries @passinglurker! They do look a tad out-of-place with the spaceplane tank in the picture, but awesome so far! I'm back on vacation and was busy playing overwatch to try out the parts sadly, but they look amazing! And finally a suggestion, maybe a linear aerospike in the engine art style? I think it would match the current aerospike nicely  if done in the same color scheme and look really good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
passinglurker

passinglurker

Posted
  • Author
Posted

@String Witch thanks link to config has been added to the OP :)

@IronCretin it's not in the plans I hate cargo bays, service bays, and fairings they've been nothing but krakens and bugs from the beginning. Instead I'm taking the reliable approach in giving users the parts they need in as inline of a package as possible. 

That being said my corner cutting methods aren't hard to emulate so if you need help making cargobays feel free to ask for pointers :)

@legoclone09 linear aero spikes don't really go well with cylindrical bodies imo(and mk2 linear spike has already been done like 3 times over). plus I don't really see a place for two 1.25m aerospikes in the balance.

like with cargo bays If you want to pick up a modeler and try your hand at it I can show you how I cut corners to make things easy on myself but this isn't an engine I see myself making sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
passinglurker

passinglurker

Posted
  • Author
Posted
13 hours ago, OrbitalBuzzsaw said:

It says 'Version 0.3 With Engines' in the thread title. Noticable lack of engines.

I'm going to need more to go off of than this. For example...

Did you make sure you installed the latest version from space dock? Is it just the engines that are missing? When you say lack do you mean they are missing right? Did you double check the file structure to insure it was installed properly? Did you do more than look at the OP and give up when you didn't see pictures because the forums is having album trouble? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OrbitalBuzzsaw

OrbitalBuzzsaw

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, passinglurker said:

I'm going to need more to go off of than this. For example...

Did you make sure you installed the latest version from space dock? Is it just the engines that are missing? When you say lack do you mean they are missing right? Did you double check the file structure to insure it was installed properly? Did you do more than look at the OP and give up when you didn't see pictures because the forums is having album trouble? 

I installed it two days ago, and I have the tanks, but nothing else

Link to comment
Share on other sites
passinglurker

passinglurker

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 hours ago, OrbitalBuzzsaw said:

I installed it two days ago, and I have the tanks, but nothing else

Ok trouble shoot time then. First I'd like a screen shot of the inside of the following folders to verify everything is installed correctly.

/gamedata

/gamedata/moarmk1

/gamedata/moarmk1/parts

/gamedata/moarmk1/parts/engines

Link to comment
Share on other sites
passinglurker

passinglurker

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 8/10/2016 at 10:22 PM, legoclone09 said:

Playing with it now and it's awesome! Could you make a Mk1 cargo bay? That would be awesome if you did!

 

On 8/3/2016 at 7:55 PM, passinglurker said:

it's not in the plans I hate cargo bays, service bays, and fairings they've been nothing but krakens and bugs from the beginning. Instead I'm taking the reliable approach in giving users the parts they need in as inline of a package as possible. 

That being said my corner cutting methods aren't hard to emulate so if you need help making cargobays feel free to ask for pointers :)

:wink:

Link to comment
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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...