Naf5000

Love the wheels! Any chance of a belly-mounted variant? Low clearance causes... Problems, sometimes.

I vigorously support this sentiment. This is wonderful.

Keep in mind you can transfer Kerbals from one part to another in stock by clicking on the EVA hatches. You could also use something like crew manifest to something similar with an easier UI.

I have this to say about my first test flight with MkIV parts: It was going very well until everything exploded. There was one survivor.

Exactly! And I'm proposing giving each side of the plate a generic set of attachment nodes to save on part count for the mod. There are many uses for simple sheets of metal.

Idea: Flat end plates for the cargo bays. With them, we could cap off the ends of cargo bays and use them as hangars on space stations. Give one side two 2.5 meter mounts and the other side, I dunno, six 1.25 meter ones. Flat adapter plates like that would also be handy for certain engine designs, so it's not just a single-purpose part..

Is Porkjet still supposed to brew up textures for these parts? They look alright, but KSP doesn't use a minimalistic art style.

C.U.T.L.A.S.S. engine - Combination Under-space Toggleable Aerospike Space propulSion Engine B.R.O.A.D.S.W.O.R.D. engine - Big, Roaring, Ominously Adaptable Dynamic Space, Water* and Ordinary Really Dangerous engine *Not meant to function underwater.

Okay, I've got a bit of a big request. And by 'bit of a big request,' I mean a pretty huge one. Custom textures for all the parts. I love these parts. They massively expand the things you can do with the MkII fuselage (I especially like the rover cockpit, wonderfully designed part). But the little seams where the stock textures are stretched or stitched together bug me too much for me to really feel happy using most of them. Even if you don't brew up custom textures I'll still use a lot of these because they are superbly designed, but still... Pretty please?

Could you grey out the little blue lights on the medium nose? They look a little like eyes, which I like with the probe core but not so much with just a tank. Thanks for the great work regardless!

Could you give a shot at career mode implementation? Fuel pumping is supposed to be disabled until you upgrade your buildings a little, but this plugin works by default. Thanks for updating it, by the way. I love this mod.

If you click on the hatch on the bottom of the cockpit you can have kernels come out of there.

Format is compatible, they load up fine. I didn't test to see if they actually function, and they're probably a little out-of-balance nowadays, but there's no real reason for them to not work.

I think sinking the 1.25 nodes further into the fuselage might look better. It also might not, of course. I do approve of aligned CoM and 1.25 nodes though, and the more rectangular bay could also come in handy for certain rovers I've got no way to transport.

Feature idea: Vertical offset to allow for smooth-looking gull wings. The joints you get from rotating the wings leave awkward little splits in the wing. Minor detail, and not really necessary, but... Pretty please?

You might want to experiment with the four buttons in the top left. Offset in particular is really useful.

You can toggle it with R. If you place a part radially, the game will automatically switch to radial because it can't figure out what's supposed to happen otherwise, and the same applies to mirror symmetry.

Just tried the latest version, and it's not working. There are three outcomes to me trying to place a procedural part: I click to attach, and it doesn't attach. I try to throw it away, and the game works fine... Unless I try to do anything with the part the procedural wing was attached to, in which case the game stops accepting input from my left mouse button. The right one works fine, I can rotate the camera and open the stats on parts in the item selection, but the only thing the left mouse button is willing to do is change which part tab I can use. If I drop the procedural wing in open space after trying to attach it, the game acts sort of like I attached it. If I pick up the part it's "attached" to, then it moves along like a child part would, but if I try to reattach the parent part, the relevant connection nodes vanish without an actual attachment forming. I can throw away the still-selected part and everything returns to normal, but if I try to drop it it takes on the pseudo-attached state of the wing and the left mouse button does the same thing it did in the first glitch if I throw the entire broken assembly away. If I try to move the ghost part, the entire ship moves. Nothing untoward happens if I just drop the procedural part in space without trying to attach it, but doing so does not prevent either of the above glitches from happening. EDIT: And the logs mention a bunch of "NullReferenceExceptions" taking place before I quit the game, all referencing engine transforms. All they say about the procedural part is that it is being deleted.

If you're patient, you ought to be able to coat the upper surfaces of that hovercraft in solar panels. That should go a long way towards increasing the range, although the effectiveness will be decreased at the poles.

There's a circle of red light on the wall that's brighter in the second photo. Took me a minute to find.

The SXT air brakes don't require any of the other SXT parts, so you can get rid of the ones you don't want. That's what I did, the only other thing I kept was the little .625 meter inline goo container.

It's mostly for consistency's sake. Stock may look a little bland, but any craft made with stock alike parts at least looks decent, whereas a ship cobbled together from b9, LLL, stock, and Firespitter will look like a cluster of clashing styles and colors. It's like the difference between a tuxedo and pretty much anything you see if you google "Weird fashion"; Sure a tux is bland and colorless, but worn right it has a ton of style, and at least you won't look like someone trying to sneak in to a theme park.

Time to use what my reasoning and argumentation teacher taught me! First, identify premises and conclusion: P:You show me a stock repulsor and we'll bug lo-fi to make a match for it. P:No stock repulsors are available? C:Hmm... then this is as stock-alike as it gets. Then, convert to standard form: P: All times you show me a stock repulsor are times we'll bug lo-fi to make a matching repulsor. P: No times like now are times you can show me a stock repulsor. C: No times like now are times we'll bug lo-fi to make a matching repulser. Convert to shorthand, identify positive/negative statements and determine distribution. P: All S(d) are B(u) + P: No N(d) are S(d) + C: No N(d) are B(d) + And it looks like the B in the conclusion requires the B in the premises to be distributed, which it is not. Your argument is invalid because the times we can bug lo-fi are unrelated to whether or not he has a stock repulsor to model off of. Personally, I think the current repulsors are close enough to stock to be fine. Your argument just really bugs me.

I like the Cupola shields, but could you divide the big circular one into six pizza-slice-shaped ones? It seems like that big offset circular plate would inhibit FOV or something. Which seems like something you would account for, but still. Please?

Alright, my quick test has garnered my support for the single most frequently suggested improvement in this thread: Make the bumps on the side match with the CoM. If you turn off the snap-to-angle function wings will sit straight, but it's hard to assemble modular wings without angle snap. Procedural ones work perfectly, though. Excellent work!