[How do you feel about part addons that require plugins?]

As usual with single-choice polls, my answer is somewhere between the available options.

If the part is cool and it works, then it's all good. The only problem with parts that require custom plugins is the possibility that the new plugin might be buggy or break something I already have installed. RPM or Firespitter are safer options in that case, but even they go haywire occasionally.

The preferable way to do it is often like the way RPM or TC-LS works: if you've got those addons, they add functionality to the part, but if the addon is missing the part still works, just minus that feature. If you can, make the addon bits a bonus, not a necessity.

Yeah, I debated making it a multiple choice poll, but then that's what replying is for. Thanks for your response.

[[Answered]Smoother edges?]

When you're importing into Unity, in the import setting there will be drop down boxes for "Normals" and "Tangents". Set "Normals" to "Calculate". Adjust the angle value to your liking.

[How do you feel about part addons that require plugins?]

I'm starting to get some parts out there and so far I've kept them to stock functionality, but I was wondering how people felt about plugins.

[Part Search]

I don't know how much a mod can change the VAB, but would it be possible to add search functionality to the parts selection panel? Even if it were as basic as searching by keywords so a player could type "engine" and anything with the ModuleEngines part module in its part.cfg would appear in the search results, it would make things much more efficient. Then of course it could search actual part names and maybe descriptions as well. I'm sure searching the appropriate fields wouldn't be hard, but is it even possible to modify part selection?

[kerbal achievements]

A wall with each Kerbal's mission patches and such would be pretty cool. It would be pretty rough when the wall was a memorial after the Kerbal was lost too. I like the idea.

[Who are the funniest KSP players on Youtube?]

Check out Danny2462. If I remember correctly most/all of his stuff is pretty clean. Hilarious, to boot.

Thanks for the suggestion. I just watched his trampoline video with my 6 year old and he loved it.

[Who are the funniest KSP players on Youtube?]

I'm trying to encourage my sons (6 and 11) to take an interest in KSP and since they like watching funny Minecraft players, I thought they might like watching some Kerbaltastrophies committed by some of our community members. Now as much as I love the likes of Robbaz, I'd rather keep it age appropriate. Scott Manley is great, but most of his stuff is a bit slow for them.

So, any suggestions?

[SAS modules option to balance thrust.]

I agree, this would be a nice vanilla feature. Fuel balancing would also be very nice, maybe the ability to assign several tanks to a group that all drain equally (assuming you've added proper fuel hoses). There has been some talk of changing how fuel transfer works in the future, so maybe balancing will get added at the same time.

[What did you do in KSP1 today?]

For some reason I decided my Duna and Ike flyby probe should not have parachutes. So after a mission that was only successful thanks to some careful gravity assists, the probe returned to stable Kerbin orbit with for goo canisters and two science Jr's. Richsy Kerman made the spacewalk to recover the data for a total of 847 science (I think it had a 2HOT as well). I haven't left Kerbin's SOI using anything but an LV-N in a long time, but the trusty 909 got the job done.

[KSP-TV SquadCast - Release list and discussion]

I'd much rather they were permanent boosts to specific parts. Ex - Dump some research and cash into engine research, and the T30 and T45 both gain a better combustion chamber, increasing thrust permanently. Or the 48-7S/24-77 get better specific impulse. Or the poodle goes on an even bigger diet. etc.

Yeah, I like this a LOT better. Temporary buffs just don't make sense and don't even sound fun. It would mean you could design something that only works while that buff is active, then it's useless.

[Animation Help]

Thank you, gentlemen. Once again I was over-thinking it.

[Animation Help]

I'm working on another part and I need a way to either stretch a mesh or something similar to fill a gap between two parts, one moving, one static. Here's an idea of what I'm working on.

I could add a complicated set of links, like plate armor, that expands as the nozzle rotates, but that would be a pain and would increase poly count a lot. Is that my only option though?

FYI, I'm going to use AnimateGeneric, no plugins.

[How do you version your mod?]

I dont understand why one would need automation in order to do that...

I can easily use the method I described without having a program do it for me... Hence my being able to write it out and not being a computer/program myself.

Edit* That being said, I feel that the AAA section I described is useless unless you have internal testing.

Yeah, the AAA section is possible, just unnecessary unless you have multiple people on your team and need to coordinate testing.

[Is there a part.cfg option to toggle an animation state in the VAB?]

It seems like any part with the option to toggle the starting state in the VAB, like landing legs or ladders, uses its own module. Is there a way to do this with ModuleAnimateGeneric?

[Announcing the NCA Aerotech RotoThrust]

You got the cylinderical body already, you could build the intake into the engine itself. all you need is an empty transform called "Intake"; +Z forward. then just copy the Intake and IntakeAir res definition from a stock intake part.

I'm considering that as an alternate model, but one-part-does-all isn't really much like the way stock parts work.

[Announcing the NCA Aerotech RotoThrust]

In case anyone wants to give it a try, here's the RT-2B1250.

[How do you version your mod?]

You can't use such complex scheme without an automatic build system. Keep it simple : X.Y change when you add major feature and for bug fix

Or use the KSP version it was built for and add an other number to it (x. Y. Z)

-

Yeah, I definitely want to keep it simple. I'm thinking maybe [release].[content addition].[bugfix/polish].

[How do you version your mod?]

Thanks, guys. WololoW, that is helpful.

[How do you version your mod?]

I'm not asking about theory or best practices, I want to hear from modders about how they personally version their own mods. I'm about to make my humble part available for download and I'd rather be slightly more formal than "I made a thing".

[What did you do in KSP1 today?]

I tested my new engine.

[Announcing the NCA Aerotech RotoThrust]

Simple re-texture. It still needs work, of course.

[Show off your awesome KSP pictures!]

VTOL SSTO re-entry.

[The Harrier, a VTOL training plane]

How about a VTOL SSTO that requires one part and no plugins?

[0.625 m jet engines.]

Now that my VTOL engine is working nicely, I'm moving on to make some 0.625m parts and a jet engine is at the top of the list. Of course you can just rescale the Mk1 stuff, but I think they deserve their own, tiny style. That said, I'd love to see it stock.

[Sandbox Mode should not have fewer features than Career Mode]

The question is: will presence of that feature harm your personal game experience in any way?

There's substantial difference between 'I don't care if it is there' and 'I'll have less fun if it is there'. And IMO only the second case is valid as argument against the suggestion.

You can edit the persistence file, give yourself just the right amount of science to cover the tech tree, and a large sum of money. Then you can play 'sandbox in career'.

Well put, sir and an excellent suggestion.