CobaltWolf

@Jall nice screenshots! @Foxxonius Augustus ugh now I feel bad. Our current Centaur D has matte white on it, since the real one had insulation panels that jettisoned around SECO (IIRC), which the G/G'/T versions were all inside a cargo hold or fairing, and didn't need them. I didn't bother having jettisonable panels for gameplay purposes but now that we have LH2 boiloff... oh god... @komodo neat little station! Not convinced that it needs all that RCS tho @davidy12 for one, I will stop replying to the next person that asks for those ugly old parts back. Two, these parts are split up in all the same ways as the old Centaur parts. Short 2.5m tank, adapter tank, short 1.875m tank... it also has an avionics block. Speaking of those, since we have a ton of them now... maybe have those capable of autonomous control or whatever the new gameplay mechanic is? That'd help make them useful; for most people I have a feeling they're dead weight. @DarthVader it's English run through a cyrillic converter. 'Engine', 'Service' (on the panel on the side of the mount), and 'BDB-S-IC' (I think). Also, apologies if I have missed any posts/questions recently. If they're important please post them again.

Check to make sure you don't have a SmokeScreen or RealPlume folder in your Gamedata folder. We have configs for supporting RealPlume, which for some reason activate sometimes when they shouldn't. Alternatively, you could simply delete the Realplume compatibility folder in Gamedata/Bluedog_DB/Compatibility. that solution wouldn't mess with anything you might have installed that depends on something that is causing the RP configs to activate. I'll ignore the FASA dig @komodo do you ever actually sleep? At least I have a good reason to be up tonight - which may or may not have an effect on BDB's short term future. Will report when I know more.

Pretty much. Centaur G'/T (only half modeled...), Centaur D/D1-T (needs a texture pass!!!), Vega. I also need to make a longer 1.875m tank for Centaur V... Maybe an orange one for DEC/SEC?

Uhh.. Uhhhhh.... UHH- *SMOKEBOMB*

@VenomousRequiem they're saying that they want to add templates for the WBT tank switching. I'm trying to resolve it with the still-not-merged pull request that @komodo made last night; I haven't been able to test it yet.

@pap1723 does the update place the BDB Saturn/Apollo/LEM parts? Also, on Monday night I added a commit for the Vega upper stage; for reference it belongs in like Tier 4.

@InsaneDruid any screenshots of the new stuff? Just want to see what they look like.

#CoatlFlakes

It sounds like it's based on RemoteTech, in which case, just get in the habit of slapping a dipole on your upper stage.

To be clear, do the BDB probe cores behave differently from stock?

I think the idea is that you put one of the smaller antennas on your upper stage for launch, and then extend your probe's antennas before you separate. Yes, only for the Skylab type stuff. The MOS/MOL parts weren't designed with wet workshops in mind.

We had B9 configs made when we decided we were going to natively include hydrolox engines, but we've moved to WBT. Right now tanks use the full window UI (like on Angel's MOLE/Skylab, for configuring the labs), but I can/will move them to using another module of his that just has the one-button switcher in the right click menu. I'll need to write some custom tank types for the service modules I think, since they have a bunch of different resources.

People talk a lot about the supposed stability/reliability of consoles, but that only applies for developers that are willing to put a lot of time/effort into polishing and QA. A lot of sloppier developers (Squad, Bethesda, etc) release buggy ports that they never properly fix. To be clear, you have my sympathies. It's definitely a jerk move to release a sloppy port and not fix it. I'm more just musing here. Also, in an effort to clearly communicate, I just wanted to throw my 2c about @passinglurker's position. There's some animosity in the air since the console ports negatively affected PC players as well. The rush to make changes to the game in preparation for the ports led to a lot of bugs/instabilities in the game that have only really started to get fixed in the 1.2 release. In the end, I don't think anyone is fully happy - PC players had their game compromised to try and get the game ported, and console players have to deal with a subpar port.

Would you be making them fit into the old/current stock parts, or would you want them to match the new Mk1 that was in the Porkjet parts files - bearing in mind of course that those might never be finished? One thing I noticed is that in 1.2 all the windows got updated to the sorta teal-ish color that Porkjet used for his windows. I think it would be worth updating the color for your windows to match those, it was one of the first things I noticed when I launched 1.2. Yes, our packs have certainly diverged from 'old stock', as I think of it. Though they do match the redone stock parts fairly well - not that it matters now. I still enjoy seeing the kind of cartoony old stock look sometimes, it's just that they clash with a lot of other mods, since most mod authors have moved away from that style and towards the more modern/detailed style that Porkjet was doing. If you wanted to have both available, I could package my textures so they would be available as a download in the OP or whatever. Or even the original Trails textures, come to think of it. I work in Maya, so they'd be exported FBX files or something. If you're going to edit the UVs, that means that you'll probably have to rebuild the Unity setup for the docking port... Back then I modeled the colliders separately and assembled them in Unity... once you get there I'll have to take screenshots for the transform values for all the colliders. Sharing unity scenes is a PITA. I have PSDs of the textures, I think the best way would be to edit the textures to suit you (maybe convert the gray metal to matte white paint? It'd make it fit with the 1.25m fuel tanks for a sort of stock Agena Target Vehicle!), save it out as a flat PNG or something so you can cut out the relevant parts of the texture, move them / line them up to fit in the extra space on Service_A, and then edit the UVs of the mesh to match them back up. I might be able to save them out as TIFFs instead or something. One of the areas that BDB is somewhat suspect is our tech tree balance, but unfortunately I don't know if our parts are one the same nodes as the Trails versions. If you're pushing for more old-stockish style, is there any chance that we'd see a Titan II? I understand that's a big jump to make in terms of workload/commitment. But otherwise you wouldn't have anything to launch this on I think. I ask because I'd be more than happy to send you my Titan files as well, if you wanted to mess with those textures and include the bare basics that would be required for a 1.875m launcher... maybe even add a couple extras, like the Transtage engine for the vacuum engine (so you get the stock lifter/sustainer/vacuum lineup). Or you could point people towards MOLE's Titan parts, which already fit the old-stock style a bit more.

Go for it! It's sitting on a larger texture sheet with some other stuff, would you want to transfer the textures onto some empty space in the Gemini texture sheets? IIRC the service module texture had a bunch of room, unless you used that for your new parts (I still haven't sat down and looked at your changes ). If you want, I can upload whatever files you want/need, let me know what formats you want them in. Also, I just merged a PR from @Daelkyr adding your IVA. Thanks! Also also, some feedback on the image that you put in the OP. This is purely, like, my opinion man. IMO the red + yellow of the decoupler is a bit too much. Perhaps toning them down, by desaturating them a bit (the yellow might need some faint orange/gold mixed in to compensate), or maybe adding some layers of grime to mute them a bit. I know that the stock decouplers follow that scheme but I don't think it matches the more subdued Trails parts. Or if you want (and I think this would be cool, to further differentiate the 'official' version and the BDB version) you could push the colors of the capsule/service module the other direction, towards more cartoony/old style stockalike. Just my 2c.

Sounds very neat! I always forget to turn the lights on/off.

The easiest thing to do then, IMO, would be to import the Mk1-2 .mu via Blender if you haven't yet, adjust the model as needed to fix the seam, and then have the attach node for the extensions be offset down so that they attach flush in game without needing the gizmos.

Just double checked, I still didn't install TR properly - there's no plugin. Oops! Ignore me, I'll let you know if I get it working later.

Yeah they're Unity 5 emissive color animations, I believe that's the same way stock parts are set up. I actually just found out that they had them. There doesn't seem to be any reflections showing up at all, and the emissives still animate. Maybe I messed up the MM patch somehow? At first it was because I'd forgotten to install TextureReplacer (I downloaded the master from Github instead of the last release... probably not helping anything), but I installed it and still didn't get anything. KSP 1.2, latest release of WindowShine, etc. Idk I'm crazy hungover right now.

Definitely possible, just something that someone needs to sit down and do at some point. I'd also like to have a full monoprop config, since there were some proposals for basically just sticking 4-8 extra Marquarts on the base of the SM to use as OMS, making it closer to Gemini. I'm making a dual linear Apollo RCS block (basically the rectangle shaped base, but with 2 coming out the... idk, normal direction? It's a linear thruster lol) for that purpose. Also, speaking of LHO service modules...

@Avera9eJoe so, trying to get compatibility for this working on my capsules, starting with the Apollo, but I can't seem to get anything working, following the tutorial linked in the OP. I just noticed the Known Issue related to other shaders; all my windows have animated emissive lights. Does that mean that the emissive animation will be broken? Would that be why the BDB patch doesn't seem to be doing anything? If anyone wants to look, here is the patch (just for the Apollo CM) uploaded to Dropbox.

Awesome! I read the license, but I just wanted to make sure that you were ok with it; since the IVA was primarily your work.

Yeah yeah. Waiting to feel inspired to finish those; the models are mostly done. And they'll be easier since I don't have to do an engine along with them. (at least, not at first; I still need to finish the two extending RL-10s). Meanwhile, I now have a Patreon page! A couple people asked me about setting up recurring donations to BDB, hopefully this makes it easier! Unfortunately I can't give much in the way of rewards for patrons - as before, WIP screenshots are posted as soon as they're at a point where I'm ok with people seeing them, and new parts are uploaded to Github as they become playable. This is really just for people that want to help support my work.

Alright I'll have to take a look! I don't think I'll need a 'BDB Edition' for it, especially since the parts are already forked somewhat and maintained on our end; anything new sounds like we'd be able to just port the changes onto our own version. re: IVA, I'll have... idk, @Daelkyr take a look at the IVA. I assume that means we can redistribute a modified version..? (Credited, of course)

I agree that there needs to be something to cover the gap. Apart from that, really awesome! Cool to see some stockalike parts from you, and it looks like they match the stock Mk1-2 perfectly!