TeeJaye85

Try throwing the lines below into a config file. Quick test seems like it works. Should make you update-proof (as long as I don't change the part names on you ) @PART[basicRadialEngineMount]:Final { !MODULE[ModuleDecouple]{} !stageOffset = DELETE !childStageOffset = DELETE !stagingIcon = DELETE } @PART[doubleRadialEngineMount]:Final { !MODULE[ModuleDecouple]{} !stageOffset = DELETE !childStageOffset = DELETE !stagingIcon = DELETE } Note: I still like Tweakable Everything, because it lets you make the change in game, so you can have some parts decouple and others not. As long as you're ok being locked into no decoupling though (at least for the duration of a play session), this should do the trick Other note: Use at your own risk. Haven't extensively tested, and I've never played with MM before. It's possible that something as simple as a missing or extra bracket results in total game breakage

Oh man, I love this idea. Hadn't even crossed my mind. Post some shots if you have success; crafts too if you're willing. I'd love to take your Citation for a spin!

Thanks so much for the feedback. This stuff helps out a lot. I shot you a PM with some followups on your specific observations.

Wow another great one. I'd better get to work on that album. I'm going to throw credits on each image. Let me know if there are also descriptions you'd like applied to them.

Cool. I'll keep doing it that way until I hit trouble then. And thanks for the quick reply. I'm gearing up for my first IVA and now that I've seen this awesomeness, you can expect plenty of annoying noobie questions from me!

I have a beginner question on this front. Not limited only to IVAs, but having trouble finding a definitive response anywhere else, and it certainly sounds like you know what you're talking about Is there a downside to modelling all of my parts to a rescale factor of 1? It seems so much simpler just to build the dimensions exactly the way I want them in-game, but every beginner modding tutorial I've seen says to model 1m and then rescale to 1.25 in part.cfg.

Indeed you can! Another option is to run Tweakable Everything as recommended in the OP.

Have I been so engrossed in this silly little mod that I missed the release of the new b9 pack? Based on what little I've learned so far, I'm not sure how they did that in the right-click menu without a plugin (maybe the do have a plugin). If it's just a part.cfg thing, though, I'll definitely check if it's implementable for us.

Absolutely. This is almost exactly the original plan I had in my head. I'm still on the fence, though, as I don't want to fill up the VAB with too many parts, especially when there are mods available to address the issue. We're still working on final textures and we may include this at that point (or later!). I was looking to gauge what would be the more popular default setting in the meantime while there is only one of each part. My preference is to keep the decoupling and people who don't want it can just move it all the way up to the top of the staging sequence out of the way (or use Tweakable Everything), but if everybody wants them to be static, I'm happy to make the change. Some players prefer career mode, and I'd like to get feedback on their experience with the parts ASAP as well. Obviously having these parts right off the start is unbalanced, but nobody is forcing anyone to use them and having them available means the maximum number of people are able to install them on their ships and see how they work. I agree that all-out failure testing is easiest in sandbox. But even if career mode isn't the ideal spot for testing, the parts still need to exist there. The poll question is about which node you think would be appropriate as the final home for these. Do you have an opinion? Thanks as always for your feedback, and great advice on the symmetrical construction

Thanks for following up. Let me know if you find it. In the meantime, in case you didn't catch it, I updated the OP with a recommendation for Tweakable Everything. Let's us do exactly what you're looking for. Check it out!

Good points. We can certainly throw the idea on the pile to look at in the medium term. I recall seeing a screenshot on one of the reddit threads as we were first discussing this idea of a part that resembles what you're describing. From one of the bigtime part packs I think (maybe NovaPunch?) I'll see if I can dig that post up when I've got a few minutes.

I like the sound of the action-group-only idea (for the same reason you mentioned). Would you mind sharing the changes you're making to the part files to do this on your own install? I'm still learning here and haven't the foggiest clue how to do that. Thanks!

Wow, thank you for catching that. Certainly sounds like that typo could be the issue. I'll take a look at it first thing tonight

Hadn't considered the Kraken. Good thinking. Let me see if I can understand what you're saying about the GOs (definitely a little beyond my current level of understanding). The decoupler module in my part config looks like this right now. MODULE { name = ModuleAnchoredDecoupler anchorName = anchor ejectionForce = 350 explosiveNodeID = srf } I have little doubt that the anchorName line is doing nothing but confusing things. Honestly I can't remember if I tried an iteration where that line was gone but all else was left identical. At some point last night my mindset became "if it ain't broke...". I tried using the "regular" decoupler module (the one used by stack decouplers), but couldn't seem to get it to work. Are you saying that the "anchorName = anchor" is referring to a separate object in the unity file from which the model was written? So the model for a stock decouple is split into multiple game objects? That certainly makes sense. Any idea what the other half is named (not even sure that will help me with this issue, but good to know for future)? You said something in your post about the "srf" too, but I'm not sure what you were getting at. It seems to be working, so I was assuming that srf was the default ID for any surface attachment node on a given part. Any idea what in here is keeping the decoupler from showing up in the staging UI in the VAB? Sorry for my painful ignorance and thanks for your help!

PandaHammer is a magician. Knocked these out in less than an hour from what I hear! Thanks! Means a lot coming from you; I love your mods. Bring your friends! +rep right back atcha I won't hold that against you I don't trust myself either; still testing on a separate install. That being said, these are just parts...no plugin. I don't imagine my noobie "code" can do much damage from within a part.cfg file, but maybe one of the more seasoned modders could confirm or deny. Unless you are flirting with your RAM limit, there shouldn't be much risk to adding this to your game. Don't quote me, though Nuts. Does that mean you think it's an issue with the stock game, and there might be nothing we can do? That's a bummer. This looks great! I'll start adding screenshots in a day or two and you've set the bar high for others to make the cut

Known Issues Moved this list down here from the OP because the two major issues with the 0.10 release have been resolved! Thanks to everyone who helped out. : 1) [RESOLVED - v0.15] The Mounts do not show up in the Staging Plan in the VAB Nowhere to be found, however as soon as you move to the launchpad they show up. Of course this is incredibly annoying, because it means you need to re-do your staging on the launchpad. If I had to guess, this is related to the fact that I borrowed the part.cfg info from a stock radial decoupler, and there are lines in there which I assume are controlling the interactions with the separate parts (anchors?) which remain behind on your stack when using those parts. Any changes I experimented with resulted in the staging not working at all, so I figured this was the lesser of two evils. If any experts out there can point us towards the error we'd love to upload a quick patch for this issue. Thanks to Justin Kerbice for catching a typo in the part.cfg (That's right, a typo. That's what we get for rushing). Issue has been resolved as of Beta v0.15. Please test to confirm. 2) [RESOLVED - v0.25] Trouble Mounting Engines in Symmetry Mode The mounts themselves can be attached in symmetry mode, however when you move on to attaching parts (e.g. engines), 3 of the 4 (for example) remain red and refuse to snap. Again I have a suspect for this problem: The collision mesh on this model is a little rough. Is this a known issue? Will the engine I am "holding" be fine, but the others being symmetrically applied will not attach due to being in contact with the collision mesh? If anyone can confirm this as the culprit, we can prioritize a better mesh for an upcoming release. Otherwise, any brilliant ideas? In the meantime, it looks like you'll be stuck attaching parts one at a time (that works fine). Brought the collision meshes in a little tighter to the parts. Now they are only about as wonky as everything else in the game--some things will attach in symmetry mode, others won't. At this point I'm calling the issue resolved as I'm confident the problem doesn't lie solely with our parts. We'll keep tweaking and see if we can make it even better. Thanks to owbowlake for walking me through how to customize the colliders.

[1.0][PART] Radial Engine Mounts - Beta Release v0.40 - 2015-05-03 Radial Engine Mounts by PanaTee Parts International (PPI) Now CKAN-Compatible! This initial release contains two Radial Engine Mounts designed to allow you to turn your stack-mounted engines into radials. Both mounts include fuel crossfeed and decoupling functionality. The Double Radial Engine Mount allows part attachment on the top surface as well. Obviously the uses are not limited to engine mounting. Maybe you're like reddit user bossmcsause and fancy leaving behind your spent materials bays. Or maybe you have incredible ideas we haven't even thought of. Authors This mod was developed jointly by PandaHammer (art) and TeeJaye85 (whatever else there is). Find TJ here on the forum or on reddit, and PH over on reddit. http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/ Known (non)Issues: Big thanks to Justin Kerbice and owbowlake for their help resolving the two most annoying (to me, anyway) issues with the v0.1 release. I've moved the log down to the second post to make some room up here. Download! v0.40 at KerbalStuff v0.40 at Curse Recommended Mods Many of the most frequently requested features can be obtained using the list of mods below. Given their awesomeness, odds are you have them already Note: We are currently not bundling any of the below mods in our package. If you are interested in the functionality they offer, please visit their respective forum threads. Tweakscale - Rescale our parts The Radial Engine Mount parts are currently only available in 1.25m sizes. We highly recommend the wonderful mod Tweakscale for all your non-1.25m needs. Tweakable Everything - Remove decoupler function from staging Among many other useful things related to many of your other parts, Tweakable Everything will allow you to remove our decoupler function from the staging sequence. Firespitter - Add a small amount of fuel to the Basic Radial Engine Mount All you technically need is the Firespitter.dll. Since tons of other mods require it, odds are you've already got it. If not, grab it from the official source. You may as well just grab the whole mod while you're there, cuz it's awesome. Firespitter will allow you to add a small amount of fuel to the Basic Radial Engine Mount, as suggested by reddit users TheoQ99 and froschkonig. The (optional in-game) tweak comes at the cost of a few more funds and a bit of extra dry mass. Enjoy! ------------------------- CHANGELOG ------------------------- v0.40 - 2015-05-03 - Updated for KSP 1.0 - Tech Tree location changed to Advanced Construction v0.35 - 2015-02-24 - Folder structure changed to work with CKAN v0.30 - 2014-09-07 - Updated licence - Changed fictitious company name from PanaTee Structural Parts Co. to PanaTee Parts International (PPI) v0.25 - 2014-08-31 - Added optional fuel capacity for Basic Radial Engine Mount (required Firespitter.dll) - Tidied up collision mesh on Double Radial Engine Mount v0.20 - 2014-08-30 - Updated texture for Basic Radial Engine Mount - Scaled up raw models to avoid need for rescaleFactor - Fine tuning of node locations to account for differences in stock part interface points v0.15 - 2014-08-29 - Fixed issue where mounts did not appear in VAB staging interface. - Corrected part name for basicRadialEngineMount (was missing the "Radial"!) - Changed decoupling module from ModuleAnchoredDecoupler to ModuleDecouple - Updated drag parameters -- values set to match Rockomax Mark 55 for double, nosecone for basic v0.1 - 2014-08-28 - Initial beta release Licence ------- Models, textures, and all other assets of this modification are created by PandaHammer and TeeJaye85. This work is shared under Creative Commons licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 PanaTee Parts International (PPI) is a fictitious entity created for entertainment purposes. It is in no way meant to represent a real entity. Any similarity to a real entity is purely coincidental. (Thanks to Thunder Aerospace Corporation for the inspiration) --------

Wow! Quick turnaround. I saw your reddit thread only a couple of hours ago. I've just started taking a crack at modding, too. Hopefully you don't mind a couple of quick questions from a fellow modding newbie, since you seem to be picking it up quickly: - Where'd you get the sweet textures? The top and bottom connection points in particular look just like stock. - What software are you using to create your models? Would you mind sharing the raw files? No pressure...I'd just be curious to see how you built it (since I get the impression you are a beginner like me)

Trying this mod out for the first time and I seem to have screwed something up. I'm trying to work through this tutorial: https://github.com/BobPalmer/MKS/wiki/Tutorial_02 Once I get the whole thing into orbit and decked out with the required resources (I think), I try to move on to the section "Activating Modules", and this is where I get confused. It seems like my modules don't have any of the expected right-click menu options. See the screenshot at the link below. They all just say "State: Operational" and don't have options like "Activate Composter" or "Activate Greenhouse". I gather from the tutorial that if I were missing necessary resources, the modules would tell me..... http://www./view/b8sl9fwm2671c7v/screenshot9.png Can anyone point me towards what idiotic thing I am doing wrong? [Post duplicated on main USI thread]

That's amazing news!

OK, so haven't managed to dig up any details of my old install, but I'll rifle through my email (I seem to recall some correspondence at the time that might help). In the meantime, I think I've managed to recreate the issue. So: Base install of 0.24.2, Windows, running 32-bit for now. Two mods installed: Time Control and Toolbar. Set top warp rate to 1,000,000, leave others. Set altitude limits to 100km from warp rate 5 up. Get little ship to 120km/120km orbit. Ramp up to maximum warp (relatively quick steps, using keyboard). Let it run a few seconds. Drop to 5x (mouse click). Wait 3-ish seconds. Drop to 1x. Boom Here's the output log: http://www./view/axrkcpr5cu0r9qe/output_log.txt Also, saw the ferram4 chat; "bull without a video". Fair point Here's a video: http://www./watch/gbfe82e9168e8jh/KSP_2014-08-16_01-04-33-683.avi Admittedly, this doesn't necessarily eliminate the possibility that it's bull (I remain fully prepared to learn that I am doing something insanely stupid). I'll run some more tests next week (slower time warp changes, even longer wait at 5x, etc). Admittedly this was a pretty aggressive run with only a 3 second wait, just wanted to make sure I could recreate the issue before I got too deep in. [EDIT] In case it matters, the ship got to orbit the old-fashioned way (I saw earlier in the thread that there were some concerns that HyperEdit could cause issues, and I suppose savefile editing could too, then. So, launched on top of a rocket). That being said, I did use a tiny bit of 4x physical timewarp on my way up to 10km. Long before the "experiment", but if you think it may be a variable, I can eliminate that next time I'm in.

Yeah, I'll see if I can dig up any details of my install at the time I was encountering issues before. And I've done several cycles of re-install/uninstall, de-mod/re-mod since then, so if I test it out again even more interesting stuff might happen!

Hey, I posted a couple of times a while back about my spontaneous explosion issues and you were incredibly responsive and then I rudely disappeared for a while. Just reviewed the latest in the thread, and wanted to check back in and say I'm amazed at the level of effort you are putting into bug-squashing. I was distracted away from KSP for a bit there, and then have been playing largely unmodded since upgrading to 0.24. Anyway, enough about me. When last I was here you asked me to run a couple of tests dropping out of warp at different points in my orbit (varying my direction of travel relative to the launchpad), and I never did. Would that still be valuable data, or have you moved further along in the bug-hunt to a point where that data wouldn't be meaningful?

Wow, that is very simple. Thanks for the amazingly quick reply. I do believe I've got v7.2; just downloaded everything today from the links in the OP. I'll double-check, though. I'll take a crack at downgrading the textures a little bit. How are things holding up in 64-bit? Should I fire that up to side-step the memory issue, or will I just be opening up a whole new can of worms? Thanks again for the response. I'll report back the good news tomorrow night. [EDIT] Just noticed the "KSPLua throwing errors" part. Is that something I should worry about? Not even sure what KSPLua is. Came along with PartCatalog, right? [ANOTHER EDIT] Couldn't contain my excitement. Got out of bed and tested it out. Running 64-bit seems to be a solution. At least the solar system looks just as beautiful as I imagined. I'll play around tomorrow night and see if I get any crashes. I haven't been having any of the 64-bit issues I keep hearing about in my non-RO install, though, so fingers crossed! Thanks again.

I am brand new to Realism Overhaul and love the idea. Can't wait to get into it. I could have sworn I executed the mod installations flawlessly, but I have clearly screwed something up. I've tried 2 fresh installs with the same results. It would seem that the overhaul has only partially taken effect. At the link below are my output log and a screenshot of my solar system orbits. https://www./folder/lav4c4ghez7bn0d,ghni8j5fja3n5g0,ghni8j5fja3n5g0/shared There's something funky going on in my solar system. Tough to show it all in a screenshot, but the issues I spotted were: Minmus still orbiting Kerbin (well, Earth), Duna still looks like Duna, Jool and Dres have orbits inside that of Earth. Some changes definitely took effect (Kerbin looks like Earth, Mun looks like Moon and is at increased inclination, Eve looks like Venus).... Any idea what I did wrong?