Sherbetlemons

Truss 2.0 will have hatches, both on pods and airlocks and whatnot. I know it's frustrating, but there's not much point spending time adding a feature to a version that'll be gone in a short while when it could be spent improving the replacement/getting it out earlier.

Right, I've been away for a bit which should explain the lack of response. Well, I understand that people might be a little annoyed with the download that's available, and I've come to realise I really should have made more patently clear that the download on the first post is very much an antiquated version. A newer, shinier Truss pack is in the works, and it should fix all these issues. But I can't give a release date other than 'when it's ready', not even 'soon'. The parts in the downloads are old, buggy, and use the old part import method. Fixing them would take a while, and would serve little purpose considering they'll be replaced at a hopefully not too distant point. But I didn't make it clear, and for that I apologise. I've been putting off modifying the original post, but I think a few changes need to be made. Thanks for your patience and support

I've got a node with 6 way attachment points, but the 'inner' part is a little complex, so attachment might be tricky.

It lives! http://imgur.com/kEV1D http://imgur.com/XMcfN Nice idea

Nice ships The first part of the new version of the pack will be out in the not too distant future, and the first release may or may not include a pod. If it does, it'll be able to hold crew and such. I've just not got round to looking at the changes for pods, so I can't tell you how to fix the current version's. I'm working on the new version of the pack atm, so I'm going to remove the old version when the time comes. And ultradude25, I hadn't really thought of that, but it does sound like a good idea! The only issue is that you would not then be able to attach parts to the outside, and the outer bits of truss would simply move through things, as unity doesn't support concave colliders. But, it would be relatively simple to change the colliders on the new parts to allow attachment on the inner truss rather than the outer. Maybe after the first new release is out I'll release some alternate versions

I do things 'proper' when I'm playing for fun, but when it's taking screens... don't tell jeb, but there's only so many boosters you can put on a rocket

The orbital construction mod has been pretty useful in setting up shots like these;

Wow, you've made me want to do some rover specific parts now XD Although actually, I was going to do lander parts eventually, so a few bits of chassis shouldn't be a stretch... I was going to get the core bit of the pack up first, and the release other things as peripheral packs (landers, rovers, cargo bays, habitat rings, what have you.). The new 2m diameter module might require more... asymmetrical window placement. Also, finished 0.5 to 1m adaptor peices, in both directions, and a 1m diameter link piece. HOWEVER, I'm away for the next week, so I might be on here/the IRC, and I might get some of this done, but then again, I might not.

Those kerbals might be stuck on the dark side of the Mun, but they're well equipped! Especially like the larger rover. Looks... complicated :L

Shader problem resolved (Thanks to DYJ, that Edge Split is some powerful JuJu!) Still a few glitches, but I think from the narrow beams. Anyhoo, there's the three parts I've done so far.

Thanks, I'll drop in sometime!

Something's odd with the shaders, but there's two parts...

*Googles 'Soyuz final stage'* Hmmm, I was thinking of doing enclosed cargo bays, with opening doors, but they were going to be more like racks with covers... There will hopefully be cargo parts, for you to stash away your landers and whatnot. As for hatch/airlock parts, I was going to do a hatch as a radial attachment; while the kerbals would be 'inside' the hatch part, I think it would look the best. Plus, you would have a lot more freedom with placement. Thanks for the suggestions! The airlocks will probably be the first thing I do after getting the basic bits of strut and such done. Also, as some of the new stock parts are a little bigger, I was thinking about doing a 3m diam truss set, to go with the 0.5m, 1m and 2m I'm redoing. Thoughts? EDIT: forgot to say, I've got the unity importer figured out now, so I've got parts in game. Screens coming soon!

Well, I can see why you might have thought it was dead, but it isn't! progress has been slow, but it hasn't stopped. The pack is being worked on, but not quite at the pace it once was. At the moment I'm fiddling with the new model import method, through unity etc, which is where I'm getting caught up. But to prove I haven't been twiddling my thumbs, here's a render of the latest version of the basic 'Truss Link';

Nice plane, and even nicer shots of it!

Well, what do y\'all think of the square trusses? there\'s z-fighting (where the beams meet), but from my experience that isn\'t an issue in-game, at least not with any model I\'ve made so far.

Well, I\'ve got exams coming up pretty soon, and after that, a holiday. So any new stuff over the next few weeks is going to be concepts, drawings etc. I\'ll try and render a few, and put them up, so I have proof I\'m doing SOMETHING. I know I\'ve said a lot of things, and then not done them, so sorry about that. I just don\'t have much time on my hands. But in a few weeks I\'ll have a lot of stuff out of the way, and the workload will only dwindle until the summer. So that means more time for modding Until then, I\'ll avoid any specific promises I maintain the position that this pack won\'t come into it\'s own until docking, but after my initial \'oh nooeesss\' on hearing it was pushed back, I realised this buys me a lot more time to produce something meaningful in time for docking. So, I\'m going to redesign the basis of the trusses, with square section beams. But my plan is to have the same vague shape, with 4 way symmetry, simply because it\'s more versatile. That doesn\'t rule out a 3 way part though... ALSO, Yorik suggested seeing if anyone could help with anything. So, if there\'s anyone who knows how to do \'proper\' textures, and possibly also UV mapping, well, I\'d love to collaborate, if you\'re prepared to work with someone as disorgansied as me :L

Ok, I haven\'t updated in a while, been a bit busy with college. Anyway, I\'ve pretty much decided on 4 sided truss beams instead of 6. They are easier to work with in a number of ways. I find it easier to avoid geometry colliding all over the place, with sticking out bits. Lining up angles and so forth is easier. UV maps are simpler. Basically, it makes it easier for me to model, and it makes a bit more sense too; the current beams look awkwardly in the middle between cylinders and square sectioned beams, and I felt cylinders with more sides ( say, 12) wouldn\'t be much easier and would only add polys and complicate UV maps. With smoothing, they might look good, but... That can be Truss 3.0 So, I\'ll do all the parts I\'ve done so far with the new beams, and with more complexity in other areas. And I\'ll leave the old release, plus some parts done since then (solar shield, etc) up for the foreseeable future.

Hexagonal trusses like that do indeed look pretty darn nice, especially the one in the image. But I think I might wait till \'truss pack 2.0\', or at least after I\'ve added more parts, got the hang of texturing, and tidied the existing trusses up a bit. And I\'ve got the hang of radial decouplers, so I\'m going to do a few of them, in different lengths (heights, I suppose), the smallest being suitable for drop tanks.

I haven\'t made or released any Ion engines :S I think you\'ve got the wrong pack, perhaps it was the \'deep space parts pack\'? it seems to have some pretty shmexy ion engines in it if I remember... I was planning on adding things like that at a later date, thanks for the suggestion! And linkage strength is out of my control I\'m afraid (AFAIK). It\'s the engine itself. My parts ARE a little \'loose\', and I\'ll make sure to tidy that before the next release, which should help somewhat. Was you failure occurring in atmo? if so, it\'ll be mostly drag, and assembly in orbit with docking will help. If not, then it\'s worse than I thought :S

That was what I was gonna do

Hmm, I was thinking a bit more Icarus 1/2 and Venture Star than the Nostromo or a Charon, but I get what you mean. The Nostromo is meant to be atmospheric (correct me if I\'m wrong...), so that adds a different spin on things... As for the Charon, well, the technology and construction infrastructure available to the Caldari State might be a little above what\'s on hand for the first interplanetary jaunt for the residents of Kerbin ;P On thing I was going to add pretty soon was panelling; simple, lightweight panels which attach radially, giving more of a , and possibly double as decouplers. I\'ve got \'truss\' radial decouplers working, as well as a decoupler/adaptor/shroud, so a launch vehicle is very much \'in the pipeline\'. But I\'ve said before, I haven\'t done textures yet. I don\'t know much about them, and will need to get up to speed at some point.

And one day, when wandering through them, we\'ll see, carved in the ice, NovaSilisko

Well, the difference between a ship and a station is small But I was planning on doing a/some lander/s that fit in with the \'aesthetic\', maybe a few more cylinders and curves. And the launch vehicle will be done as soon as I get the hang of radial decouplers =P

I\'ve been trying, but it\'s really an issue with unity. I don\'t know whether it will or can be addressed. I find that lifting the vehicle off of the pad using, say, some radial decouplers, stock tanks and my links (and adaptors as feet?), and then putting the first stage engine in the same stage seems to help a bit with issues like that on the pad. I would imagine drag contributes a lot, so with docking, launching smaller sections and assembling in orbit might help overcome this a bit. I\'ll tidy the nodes up so they attach closer for the next time I release, which will help with wobble.