JohnnyPanzer

I feel it should be clarified that "no remote control through multihop" is not an actual thing. As long as a probe can trace a signal back to KSP it can be controlled. The "one hop only" rule is for using a control point other than Kerbin to gain remote control, and even then it only applies for control points using the 1.25m probe. But tracing a connection back to KSP will always give you direct control of your probe.

Ah. So, much like the issues I'm currently experiencing from not having an 8-track player bolted to the front of the chassi? (I kid, I kid. Also, last nonsense post. Honestly.) Anyway, I fail to grasp why some of you are so bothered by the nyan cat? It's a matter of taste I'm sure, but it's not like it is cluttering up the UI or anything, it's just the loading screen. What is it that that infuriates some of you so much about it that you'd almost rather not use MM than see that cat again? Not an accusation, just curiosity.

Now I'm curious, when would that ever be an issue? I haven't used mine once, I litteraly let it gather dust since I lost the small plastic cover for that particular chassi slot.

I haven't found a complete guide to the settings yet, just snippets here and there. But I can tell you that 1.2 was released on tuesday.

Okay, so here we go. Let's break this down into managable steps: 1. Locate the correct folder. It's the one named 'GameData' located directly in the 'Kerbal Space Program' folder. The path for a steam user would be Steam/steamapps/common/Kerbal Space Program/GameData. 2. Make sure you have no leftovers from earlier attepts in there. The ONLY thing you should have in this folder (GameData) is a folder named 'Squad'. That contains all the stock parts, so do NOT delete it, but delete everything else in there. So now you should have a folder named 'GameData' and it should have no other folders or files in it aparts from the folder named 'Squad' (besides the subfolders located within the Squad folders, just don't mess with the Squad folder at all) 3. Download the zip file for the mod you want. In this case, I believe it was this one: Click on the download link at the bottom of the first post, then download the zip from SpaceDock. It might take a while since everyone's downloading mods like crazy right now because of the 1.2 release. 4. Open the zip file. Then drag and drop the folder found within it (named 'OLDD') to your GameData folder mentioned above. The folder will contain subfolders, but those will be copied along with the OLDD folder. You should now have exactly two folders in your GameData folder, one named 'Squad' and one named 'OLDD'. 5. Download Module Manager. Go to this link: Scroll down past all the version changelogs untill you find two small links. One says ModuleManager.2.7.1.dll and the other ModuleManager-2.7.1.zip. The zip file just contains the exact same .dll that the first link leads to along with a README, but otherwise they are the same. 6. Drag and drop the file named 'ModuleManager.2.7.1.dll' (either from the directory you downloaded it to, or from the opened zip file) into your GameData folder. It should go directly into the GameData folder and NOT into the 'OLDD' folder. 7. Your GameData folder should now contain three things. A folder named 'Squad', a folder named 'OLDD' and a file named 'ModuleManager.2.7.1.dll. 8. Enjoy. P.S. If this doesn't work, you may have a corrupted download of the game itself, or maybe you simply never updated to the 1.2 version. Let me know if you have any further issues.

In the meantime, I believe the download page you are directed to when you click 'download' in the module manager thread includes the option to download the .dll file directly (instead of a zip) so that might be easier. Your computer might warn you (since .dll files can be used to alter other files) but you can safely ignore the warning in this particular case.

Sounds like you might have downloaded the source code. Module manager should just be a single file called something like "ModuleManager_2.7.1.dll" and it should be placed directly in the gamedata folder, so NO subfolders. All other mods should be in their own subfolders in gamedata. It might be easier to not think of module manager as a mod, but rather a .dll file full of code that helps OTHER mods do all kinda cool stuff. I'm currently on a phone at work, but when I get back home I'll post a complete step by step for you.

Just to be clear, the module manager dll should be directly in the gamedata folder. So something like Gamedata/ModuleManager_2.7.1.dll (can't remember The exact name of the file). Only The actual docking camera mod should follow the folder path you just posted. And you're not a dummy. The vast majority of all computer owners have never mucked around with game folders.

There you go. It was 2.7.1, but that's updated for 1.2 so just download it and place the .dll file in your gamedata folder.

Moduler manager is updated for 1.2 and can be found in mod releases. Do a search or find it somewhere in the first ten pages. It can be a tad confusing since unlike other mods it's not a folder that you place in gamedata, but rather a single .dll file. I think the version number is 1.7.1 but I'd have tog check to be sure. But the dll goes into the gamedata folder.

Solved without pics or details. Now I feel silly.

Pics and details would help. With what you've given us, it's impossible to tell if you're experiencing a bug or if you're just missing something.

Great guide! My only suggestion would be to add a note that when playing with the extra DSN stations off (I believe more players than expected go for this option), three equatorial relay sats around Kerbin will be needed to avoid annoying blackouts at the very core of the network. They only need large enough antennas to communicate with the two polar sats.

Had it been a mostly finished mod where the creator had trouble getting one or two parts "just right" then the request would have seemed reasonable. This is just a request for someone else to do a whole mod for you. Sorry, but you'll have to learn how to mod if you wanna call yourself a modder, just like everyone else.

I am so downloading this when I get home!

I'm also a purger. Every major release more or less. I've noticed that it makes it easier for me to try new playstyles, new designs and new mods. Also, there's something about cleansing that makes the memories of past adventures shine more brightly.

Thank you very much, I'm glad you like them. Yeah, the tech tree has been trying to balance test, in particular due to the internal power generation. This is the main reason for the very high price of the probes, to discourage their use as an early RTG. The way I see it, the probes are too expensive, too heavy and too awkward to place (no radial attachment, stacking only) for them to be used as early versions of a standalone RTG. With that said, I'm still considering various balancing methods: When used with Remote Tech, the internal power merely puts a dent in the power consumption of the internal antennas. But since antennas in stock only requires power when transmiting, this leaves the cores with a rather large power surplus in stock. One way to go would be to lower the power output in stock, leaving just enough to provide a small trickle of elextricity and then patch the current power output to RT only. Another possibility is to simply lower the power output of the 888. It lacks the internal antennas of the other probes and is therefore left with a power surplus even when using RT. Moving the 888 back in the tree like you suggested is also possible, but it is by far the least enticing option for me. Currently I'm leaning towards option one. It seems like the best solution to a problem that is mainly caused by the probes having different power demands placed upon them in stock vs RT. And as a final update to everyone, I'm still working on the next update. I can assure you all that it's not forgotten, but work is eating up most of my time right now. Whenever I get a few minutes of spare time over I tend to sit down with the new parts, but as a single father with two small kids and a full time job I'm afraid those moments don't come nearly as often as I would like them to.

Thank you so much for once again giving all of us relevant news in a time fashion.

What projection method are you using? Plane projection along the z axis should give you a good result, what's shown in the image is... weird. Almost like a view projection, but with perspective distortion added or something. Could you give us a detailed rundown of exactly how you arrived at those results? Again, I'm not familiar with blender, but from that image it looks like you are unwrapping vertexes instead of faces, is that the case? It shouldn't matter, but for most cases, you want to unwrap faces and only go into vertex mode when you need to fine tune a projected UV island. If I were more familiar with blender I'd be able to help more, but I've never touched it. I'm used to Maya, 3ds max and Zbrush, but every screenshot I've ever seen from Blender makes it look like it has the messiest, most horrible UI imaginable, so I've stayed away from it. I really should give it a try, because apart from the UI it seems like a pretty powerful free alternative to some of the bigger software suits.

Trust me, it's not the last time UV maps will leave you frustrated. Most people consider UV mapping to be the boring chore of 3D modelling. Taking a break is sometimes exactly what you need. When you get back at the horse, have a look at these various tutorials on how to use the UV tools in blender. It still sounds like you're mostly stuck in "how the hell do I do this"-mode, which suggests that you would benefit greatly by learning the basics of the UV tools. I know that when I started modelling, I spent waaaay longer than I should have struggling with UV maps. Jobs that should take less than an hour would take me days, simply because I never bothered to learn what the various buttons and tools did. Once I read through some tutorials I was amazed at how quickly things could be done. Some things that I had been doing manually, moving each point by hand, one by one, could be done by the press of a button. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Blender_3D:_Noob_to_Pro/UV_Map_Basics http://www.chocofur.com/5-uv-mapping.html http://www.katsbits.com/tutorials/blender/learning-unwrapping-uvw-maps.php http://sophiehoulden.com/tutorials/blender/unwrapTut.html

The reason we keep nagging about the polygon density is partly because unwrapping becomes more and more confusing the more polygons you have. It's so much easier to wrap your head around it all when you don't have to deal with thousands of polygons that serve little to no purpose. Try to ask the following questions whenever you start work on a new part of the mesh: How visible is this part going to be? How much attention will it draw? Will it be moving, and if so, how quickly? What's the minimum number of edges/sides needed to produce a good looking silhouette? Meshes that are hardly ever visible, will be moving too fast for anyone to get a good look at or are downplayed by nearby, more attention grabbing parts, should get the least amount of detail. Save your polygons for the show stoppers. In this case, that would be the main body and the large blades, the small diagonal blades behind the cone will hardly ever be seen, so they would hardly need any detail at all. And even for the main body/blades, a nice looking silhouette could be produced with fewer sides. The number of vertical edges is fine, you need them to be able to follow the curvature properly. As for UVs, allthough I'm unfamiliar with Blender and the UV tools provided there, there are a few things one should always keep in mind regardless of the software used: Can I reuse the same UV space? For example, would each blade need it's own unique texture space, or could their UVs be placed on top of each other. What's the best placement for my seams? Seams should be hidden as much as possible, or placed in a manner that makes it easy to paint them seamlessly. On the blades, the edges would be a good place for seams. Can something be mirrored? For example, if you know that both sides of the main body will look roughly the same, then place seams at the top and bottom, flip one side and place it on top of the other side. What's the best projection method for a particular piece? A cylinder might be best projected using a cylindrical projection. A plate would be better served by a planar projection. Would this piece look better relaxed? Most software have some sort of relax function. On meshes with lots of curves, this can be used to great effect. Another tip is to use a checkered material when unwrapping. That way you can easily see if something is scewed, and it will also let you eyeball sclaing issues quickly. If the squares are elongated, you instantly know that the UVs are stretched.

Yeah, looking at your UVs I concur with @heliobyte, it should be an easy fix. I suggest you look up some tutorials on how to use the UV tools in your 3d software of choice. It's hard to give direct advice on exactly how to do it, since you can use more than one way to get the same result. Still, if I were you I'd take those propellers down a few notches. They have more curvature detail than they need, and you could easily get your model down to less than 1,500 tris without much loss of detail. But then again, 7k tris is not going to bring the game to a halt, so it's up to you. For reference, I threw together a very quick "sketch" of your model to show how it could be done with less tris, but this was before you posted your updated images and it does not include propellers. Still, you can see that it has pretty much the same level of detail when viewed from a distance, and weighing in at less than 500 tris, you'd still have another 500 or 1,000 tris to spend on the blades. I also included some screens of one of my models along with the textures (UVs laid on top) in case that would help you figure out how to properly unwrap things.

The way you describe your problem, I get the feeling you're trying to use a solid color material instead of an actual texture map, is that correct? Just to be clear, the work method boils down to: Use the available UV mapping tools in your 3D software to unwrap all parts of the model and lay them out in the UV space. Export the unwrapped UVs as an image file so you can use them as reference. Use a 2D software (photoshop or similar) to paint a texture, using the UVs as guidance. That being said, 7k tris still sounds like it could be streamlined. I'll download you file now and have a look, but for reference, this is the rule of thumb I use for parts in KSP: Less than 1,000 tris: Good job, you obviously prioritize a high FPS above super detailed meshes. 1,000-3,000 tris: Nice. That will still work, and you'll get a lot more detail in your mesh. 3,000-10,000 tris: Now you're pushing it. Are you sure you need all those tris? It'll run, but if you have many parts like that you might notice a consideral drop in framerate. More than 10,000 tris: Why? What on earth are you trying to build? Very, very, VERY few parts actually need that many tris in KSP. Most likely, your work method is wasteful.

I'm going to bed right now, but I'll Download it and have a look in the morning. A screenshot would be a good idea if you want people to provide you with general tips.

Thank you @Snark, great input as always. Just to be crystal clear to @xandertifft54321 though, I very much AM interested in this if you can indeed replicate it in a clean install. What you're decribing is what I would consider a game breaking bug for my little mod, so if it turns out to be down to an error on my end, I would like to fix it for sure. Even if it turns out to be a compatability issue with another mod, I'd still love to hear any results you might have tracking it down. Perhaps something could be done, you never know. If you feel it would be a hassle to create a clean install to test it, I fully understand that. You are in no way under any sort of obligation to do so. But please understand that without such a test there's nothing more I can do. And on a final note, I will once again say that I welcome any and all feedback from all users. Not just bug reports, but opinions. What do you like most about the mod? What don't you like? What would you like to see changed? Have you found new and interesting ways to use the mod? I realise that this mod is limited in it's scope (it's a rather simple part pack), but going forward it's great to know what people liked and didn't like, since that knowledge can be used in future endevours. Even simple things like "the engine looks stupid" or "I like the color scheme" can provide helpful insight. And this applies to most, if not all, mod authors I think. Looking at some of the greats within this modding community, you'll often find that 90% of the posts in their threads boils down to "next update please?". But there is often a great lack of solid feedback, even for hugely popular mods.