Alshain

Strangely there is an option for this that was always in the code, but it doesn't seem to work. In fact the boolean (hard coded) that indicates which skin to use was set to use the black Unity skin when I forked the project. If I do figure out how to fix it, it will be defaulted off because I find it ugly (I'm more in the KER/KAC camp there). However, as a developer, I am all for giving people choices and letting them decide what they like.

I am pleased to announce the release of AGM Version 2! A lot has changed so be sure to read the new Usage Instructions in the original post! The number one thing to be aware of is that Action Group buttons are no longer multi-modal (multi-function). You now select the Action Group you want to edit first (even if it is empty), and then add/remove the actions. Changes are saved immediately, no need to click the button again! This is introduced with a brand new customizable UI so you can choose the way you prefer it. - Version 2.0.0 Released - Change Log: Removed Action Group Button Modality (All Views) New Overhauled UI (optional) Part Highlighting is Automatic When a Part is Selected (New View Only) Part Find Function moved to clicking the part name in the actions list (New View Only) Added Version Checking Added Dependency Info and Licenses in accordance with posting guidelines Large Code Optimizations

That's 99.6% of what I use it for Well, I hope your debugger turns up some information, I have no knowledge of aerodynamic calculations so I don't think I would be able to help.

@linuxgurugamer I am trying to make sure my addon is up to date with the current Addon posting rules. This thread says your license is BSD 2-clause license however the text at the top of the wrapper says All Rights Reserved. Which should I include in my thread/mod package? (This is what I have in there now)

So, I really miss this mod. I'm wondering how bad is the stock functionality? Is it completely unusable or is it just special cases unusable?

@cybutek Your suggested 'blurb' and Readme needs to be modified to bring it up to date with the rules altered in March. The rule is no longer 5.5 for starters, it's 6. Also, according to Rule 3 we must now include your license, name, version, and link in the download location and download. Your blurb only provides the link. Also, how would you prefer us to provide the remaining information in our download (other than license). We could include the Readme, which has all that information but it might be a bit overkill. Perhaps you could provided another AVC/MiniAVC "info" file to include in our projects. Finally, since we have to include it, it would save us 30 seconds of our lives every update if you could name your file something like MiniAVC-License.txt so we can just drag and drop without renaming. (Not the end of the world but would be helpful) EDIT: So here is what I have done in my project for the time being. I have a Licenses folder that is copied to my output. In that contains the License for my project as well as MiniAVC and Toolbar, I created a text file for MiniAVC and Toolbar (ModName-Info.txt) which are formatted as this: I think that satisfies the new rules of inclusion in the project, but if you would prefer something different, just let us know. Now I just have to figure out how to add this to my mod thread.

You don't really need to remove the resource, just repurpose the parts to mine Karbonite. I do this for Kethane.

I don't think the current ones would make sense with a top node. They are all intended to be nose cone replacements.

I agree, I've wanted something like the stack chute in RealChute to be stock for ages (preferably with a better texture).

Theoretically, it should work in 1.2.2. I don't think I added anything from 1.3 to it. However, I have not tested it. The only thing I changed due to API change was RenderManager, which transitions to Unity's OnGui method instead. However, RenderManager was removed in 1.2. EDIT: Oh and also the AppLauncher button. But again, that was before 1.2.2. Eventually I will be adding localization support. At this point that is kind of a distant thought though.

@@HvP Thank you very much

Depends on the situation. If I'm docking two ships together, I turn their ports toward each other and fire an engine. That however isn't practical with a large space station.

@Crzyrndm Thanks, I took your code and added a debug line to it. GameDatabase.TextureInfo texInfo = null; //Texture2D selectedTex = null; var texDict = new Dictionary<string, GameDatabase.TextureInfo>(); for (int i = GameDatabase.Instance.databaseTexture.Count - 1; i >= 0; --i) { texInfo = GameDatabase.Instance.databaseTexture[i]; if (texInfo.texture != null && texInfo.texture.width == 32 && texInfo.texture.height == 32) { Debug.Log("Found Texture:" + texInfo.name); } } The result was that those textures never showed up in Flight. Unfortunately I have to conclude they don't exist outside of the Editor. So, I think I'm going to have to go back to text buttons. I could use alternative textures but I feel like that would just be confusing to the user. EDIT: Well since I had it already coded, I added boolean flag and a few conditionals. Now the users can choose what they find confusing.

Is there a way to access the icons for the part categories while Flight (as a Texture), or the PartCategorizer the only way? I can access the Simple Icons, the ones that can be used for creating subcategories, but I can't figure out how to get to the main "Filter by Function" icons. I'm working on a new UI for ActionGroupManager and I would really love it if I could use the same icons for consistency.

Can't blame you there, you gotta have priorities.

It used to be that in map mode, hitting backspace would re-focus the camera on your vessel. That doesn't seem to work anymore. Has it changed? Of course it's not in the keybindings menu, but half the controls of the game aren't so that isn't anything new.

@Foxster Try this. // Set starting ablator to 20% of max for heatshields // Author: Foxster @PART[HeatShield*]:FINAL { @RESOURCE[Ablator] { @amount *= 0.2 } }

Opinions? Better? Worse? Indifferent?

You can use C# style math operators in Module Manager. amount *= 1.5 means: amount = amount * 1.5

@slubman That's a good idea. Some requests may take a little more time as I get accustomed to someone else's coding style. With that in mind and not wanting to lose track of stuff on this thread I have decided for this project to go ahead an open the Github Issues page. I've added your suggestion as the first entry. Anyone is free to add bug reports and suggestions.

It's because someone starts a rumor that because KSP loads all it's part and planet textures at load time (a design choice) that it's Unity's fault and all textures have to be loaded at design time. Then despite all logic, they take that rumor and run with it. Logic like the existence of mods that run on Unity and do exactly that for KSP. I mean really guys, if the mods can do it, so can the base game if they choose to. Now, Squad CHOOSES not to load the part and planet textures as needed (most likely for lag reasons). That doesn't mean that at start up they can't choose to load or not load a texture based on a setting.

Yes, it can.

- Version 1.4.2 Released - Folder & File names have changed. Please delete old installations to remove unneeded resources. Change Log: - Restore Blizzy's Toolbar Support - Fix Bug that prevented Recap window from being closed - Fix Bug that added an erroneous "REPLACEWITHDEFAULT" button

You can save tons of memory without going to procedural parts. @Venproved that with his stock part revamp. You just have to better re-use existing textures. The Porkjet parts do a pretty good job but the older parts are a mess. Having a procedural part simply locked wouldn't satisfy the desire for more parts though. It would only be a justification for adding procedural parts.

But the the problem is that if they are procedural, they aren't what we want. It's two different mindsets of play. The people that want more parts will not be satisfied by procedural parts. The people that want procedural parts will not be satisfied by more non-procedural parts. Neither way is wrong, but there is no middle ground there. It's one way or the other.