lo-fi

True enough, but gimp did them no favours either... Which models need UV jiggery? Don't forget that whenever I write a part out it will over write whatever you've adjusted. Much easier to fix this end!

There seems to be a tendency to make textures "look stock". Which tends to mean flat and largely featureless with some panel lines and lots of weathering. It hardly needs to be crisp! I'm not saying mine are anything , but the moment you put anything with contrast it really shows it up.. The textures look just as terrible opened in paint - KSP isn't a factor here. I tried the conversion tool, Gimp plugin and something else I can't remember. Each the same result: "Ugh. What the actual....."

Ah, OK. Didn't seem to be showing up in game, but maybe because it got mashed! Other parts aren't quite as bad - that's maybe the worst example. Though they still look like poor quality jpgs... I think I can maybe do the rover body at 1024 if I redo from the source files. Rescaling the finished image is never as good, and you should never rescale a bump map. The ATM bug was because the first rover body texture was 80meg @ 4096 As I understand it, they get converted when loaded if not already, so I don't get why they look so pants when pre-converted. Maybe I'm missing something.

Regarding the DDS textures: Compared to this: Is that an acceptable compromise? I don't think so. That's nothing to do with mip-maps; DDS is just horribly lossy. Also, whichever method you've used has stripped the alpha channel (which is used for specular) out of all the textures, Gaalidas. Granted, you don't always tend to be close up in KSP, but that looks like something out of 1991!!!! I want to do better than that, or I'm just not going to bother to texture anything - it just isn't worth the time. The texture sharing has chopped a lot down already, and I can probably be a little less generous with some of the others or create a texture atlas that's used for several parts, which might be nice. DDS: No.

Excellent, that's a relief! I'll check out revisions to the repulsor EC later. The calc is used to figure out the sound effect too, so may need further adjusting.

Ah, happens to the best of us. And: WOAH! Yeah, the icons are broken. Running my commit ffbcf9 (Fixed an issue with mirror module) all was fine. Sync, recompile, broken. It's not the module changes, then. I haven't touched the parts repo. Playing with the line factor /= 40f; changes the sizes. Though I've no idea why this would need changing when it was working before. As far as I can tell, that method has not been touched since the meter scale bug was fixed. Very strange indeed.

Sorry to hear about your hard drive, Aqua! Hope you get it fixed soon. No doubt about a hundred pages of crazy, Tyren Welcome back! @ShaggyGoblin: Max speed defined by the float curve for motorTorque. First value is speed, second is torque for that speed. Also, MaxRPM gives a rev limiter and defines something to calculate the sound effects pitch from. No-can-do with adjusting spring values in flight I'm afraid: they're like that for a reason. Namely, that you can update the values in the wheel colliders, but they will only take effect after contact with the ground is broken. This is a Unity limitation - sorry! Next version has a little more finesse with the control inputs and far better TweakScale support, so you ought to struggle less. And thanks! TL;DR = Too Long; Didn't Read. Surprised you've not heard that a lot from your gargantuan posts, Gaalidas </cheeky>

I'll check as soon as I'm in front of the PC... I'd have noticed last time, though, I was checking the descriptions. How very strange.

Go for it, Gaalidas, all sounds good. Just do post an issue in the tracker to remind me to fix the UV where needed. All models are on another repo, should you need, btw. Last I checked the icon fixer was working? Can't see how the module change would have affected it... I'll double check when in front of the PC. The repulsor wheel module needs some love, but I do intend to get them going. Thanks for the suggestions, will see what I can do.. I have some new ideas... Logging stuff sounds great! You guys are doing fantastic work

Pure laziness, I assure you! Most of my debug messages tend to be a quick program flow indicator, so I tended to bing them in without even thinking. Motor cycle wheels ought to be possible, yes. I'll add to the idea pile. TT track is unlikely to see its way to release, having been superseded by the simple track, which just needs texturing. BV track needs texturing also. By all means have a go at the DDS conversion. I could never get it to look crisp, no matter what I did. Mark those with borked normal maps as a bug in the tracker and I'll fix! We're getting close, guys. I'm quite looking forward to getting back down to some modelling! Some nice stuff in the pipeline that I've just not had time to work on. V8Jester is kindly helping with the rollcage IVA.

There are two sets of coordinates for each node. One is a vector, which gives the node direction, the other defines it's position in relation to the root transform. I forget which way round they are (not at my PC), but I'm pretty sure it's direction first, then position. The last number, if a stack node, is size. Look at, and play around with, the truss pieces for an easy example. You can't model in Unity anyway, so run through the instructions above with your mesh you've made and you'll easily figure it out.

Sorry; yeah, I mean the modifier. That's always the way! It took me ages to figure out on the first track unit I made. I used to have to export it with normals flipped, and then it would always look way too dark. I realised something weird had happened to it before I applied the skin modifier, which even if I fixed, if I applied the same copy of the modifier back on, would break it again. Most frustrating. I'm afraid I've no idea. Makes it a pain to research, doesn't it. I know it was related to normals. More than that, I have no idea if there is a technical term for it. Skinned meshes can be a nightmare. Make sure you set the root bone in the Skinned Mesh Renderer component to and object with scale 1,1,1. Otherwise, the extents will look fine, but the values will be way out of whack and KSP may think it's 50m wide. Also, you may need the Part Icon Fixer plugin to fix the editor icon, which will very possibly end up tiny.You may know all this already, but I'll offer it just in case it saves you a headache, as well as future reference. Good luck!

Yes, good call. I'll try and get one or two new parts done for 1.9. There are a few just need textures

1) the stock configs are about the best documentation you're going to get. 2) The position of items in relation to the root object that has part tools applied matters. Unless you mess with CoMOffset in the config, it's position is the centre of mass. 3) you just use a mesh. In unity, remove the mesh renderer component, which stops it being visible. Add a mesh collider component. I cannot stress enough that this should be a _simple_ approximation of your part. The fewer triangles the better. You must also select the "convex" check box. The physics issues are unlikely to have much to do with the config unless you've done something really silly. Read up on attach nodes and you'll soon figure out what you're supposed to be doing to get them in the right place. Good luck!

Urgh, I've had this with borked normals on a skinned mesh before. The only way I found to un-bork it was to strip off the skinning stuff (I work in 3D Studio), sorting transform and normals out with a Reset XForm, then re-do the skin. It was painful. I don't know how that translates into Blender terminology, I'm afraid. Good luck, but that's almost the exact same thing I struggled with, so hopefully I've given you enough to go on. Love your work!

Tell me about it. 2.0 will be full release after the Dust(FX)TM settles from 1.9, along with some of the newer parts that I haven't had time to finish yet. EDIT: Ninja'd! With so many changes, I'd feel happier soft releasing it as final beta for a short time, dealing with any funnies, then calling it stable. Make sense?

I believe you do! I'm working on getting all the configs - at least the modules - all done for testing. The weight, cost etc. have no impact on stability, so require little testing.

Great stuff. You're doing OK so far if you've got a part into KSP. Good luck

That's a good start. What size is the .mu? Does it export the textures with the .mu?

Haha. That's why we have testing!

Just saw this, sorry. I experimented.... The extents values are a factor of 10 out. This appears to be a Unity issue. If I set the to the correct values, the extents box is too small and the track surface disappears when you get too close. If I set to the correct size, the values are out and that's what throws KSP a curve ball with the size. If I tick the updateWhenOffscreen box, not only does it needlessly update the animation when out of view, but it over-rides the set values. So, nice try, but no further forward. Very annoying!

Haha! Just wait. The Mun will fall on Jebs head any moment... I've got a feeling it's to do with how the craft is placed, Gaalidas. The newer versions of KSP seem to leave the craft a little closer to the ground than they were before. All have a funny habit of jumping a little when physics starts, though it seems to affect down scaled tracks and smaller craft much more...

What is cct? EDIT: Ah, apologies, the typo threw me off. I've no idea about CTT I'm afraid! As long as you get the name (and case) correct, I'd imagine that would work. The config line you want to modify will be: TechRequired = advancedMotors Just change "advancedMotors" for whatever they've named the node in CTT. Or I could be totally wrong. I expect they have an FAQ, though, so shouldn't be hard to figure out. HTH!

Thank you, this should prove very valuable to future modders! Looking forward to the rest.

Although, having brought down one bug, another rears its ugly head.... Tracks that have been tweakscaled down cause incredible problems when switching back to the craft after initial launch. One time in five they're OK, but the rest the launch the craft sky high. Only seems to be when the parts are scaled DOWN. My TS is up to date. Easy to recreate: Rollcage, medium tracks. Launch, switch to space centre, fly craft again. BOOM! Also, the rolling resistance and load co need scaling with TS. More bugs for the tracker I'm afraid!