Scarecrow71

My own ranking of planets to land on, from easiest to hardest. Keep in mind that I am intentionally leaving Kerbin off this list because you should have plenty of experience landing back on Kerbin after getting into space (and I assume OP is asking about planets OTHER than Kerbin). Dres. Although there are those out there that claim this rock doesn't exist, I firmly believe and have proof that it does. It's easy to land on due to the low gravity and no atmosphere, but it can be difficult to get to depending upon the craft you are using to do so. Duna. The atmosphere on Duna is nearly negligible (in my opinion), but it has enough of one that you can use parachutes for the landing. If you take an Engineer with you, you can use them to repack the chutes and potentially use the lander as a return vehicle to Kerbin. Eeloo. Much like Dres, getting there is the problem. Eeloo can be a bit tricky to get to due to inclination, which then makes orbiting and landing a bit of a trick as well. However, its low gravity and relatively smooth surface (in most places that I've seen) make landing here easy enough. Moho. Proximity to Kerbol is what makes this difficult. Takes a lot more dV to get there than you'd want to use, and it takes a bit more dV to land on then you'd think it would. And if you mess up getting there, you could wind up a bit closer to Kerbol than you'd like. Gravity here might be a tad...problematic. Eve. The atmosphere alone has claimed far more landers and probes than people wish to admit. There's a ton of memes simply expressing how difficult it is to touch down and take off. If you can get down to ~60km in the atmosphere without blowing up, you have a shot at hitting the ground. Jool. Technically, you cannot land on Jool. It has no actual surface in-game to land on, which makes it beyond impossible to do. Remember this is only one person's view of things, and what I have experienced may very well be what others have not. Your mileage WILL, not may, vary.

I generally, at a minimum, like posts that are direct responses to things I'm asking. If I failed to do that, I sincerely apologize; I need all the help I can get, and if I forget to like a post or respond I need to be called out on that. My bad! Took this advice and removed the Microsoft Store version, then downloaded and installed the Windows 64-bit version from Blender directly. Not sure why I didn't think to do that myself. Major brain fade! But now that I've done that, I was able to add the add-on (Import-Export: Mu model format (KSP)) to the add-on folder, and I was able to select it in the Add-Ons dropdown in Blender. And that's as far as I got viewing the videos that @CarelessDoughnut gave me, so I'm not all that far! I will be going through the videos today as time allows! I plan on doing that. I'm no 3-D artist, and this Blender stuff is all pretty new to me. So I'll take all the hints I can get. And I thank you for linking to it so I can find it easily enough! EDIT: And unfortunately, there isn't a lot of information in your thread or the above videos for those of us that don't know a darned thing about modeling; it's all geared towards intermediate users. So I'm off to find a few blender tutorials and go through those first. As with anything, one must first learn to crawl and then walk before they can fly.

@CarelessDoughnut And I can't work through those videos. Blender was installed on my machine through the Microsoft Store, and I don't have permissions to the WindowsApps folders for some odd reason. It's my desktop, and I'm the admin on the machine. But I have no clue how to give myself permissions on that folder so I can create the necessary folder in addons.

Granted. It's blended into a nice, thick, squidy-tasting shake, and you are forced to drink it through the tiniest of straws. I wish to be a fish swimming at the bottom of the ocean.

Not if I ninja him. Hello, @Nazalassa.

I'm not sure I'm going to finish this challenge at this point. It's gotten to be way too grindy at the last stage, trying to eke out whatever science points I can get to cross the finish line. I have bodies I haven't gotten to yet, such as Moho and Eeloo, not to mention the Jool system (yes, it's an entire system of its own in my eyes), but it's getting repetitive and grindy. Not to mention that with the EA announcement of KSP2, plus my wanting to start learning how to mod for both KSP1 and KSP2, I'm not sure I have it in me to keep going here. I'm not throwing in the towel yet, but I am waving a flag to say "I'm still here, but it's not going to happen any time soon".

It has already been confirmed that early access will be $49.99; they stated as much in the video last week.

@CarelessDoughnut You are a righteous genius! I did the following: Removed the .mu extension from the model call in the config file Updated the weight to be 0.5 The model shows up in KSP...and it works! Simple fuel tank, holds the right amount of fuel and oxidizer based on what I put in the config file, and I can attach it to command pods and engines and everything. That was exactly what I needed to help me figure out what the story was. Now, there's still a few problems. The biggest one being that part of the model simply doesn't show up. It's supposed to be, in the simplest terms, a cylinder with 2 toroidal rings (one top and one bottom) with the rings connected to each other by support columns. The top ring and the support columns don't display in KSP even though they are in Blender AND Unity...but this may be an issue with my limited understanding of modeling and rendering. I need to go through and create some more stuff and see what happens. Could also be that I went a bit fast on this one and simply botched the Write statement in Unity? Who knows; practice will help here. The other problem is that only 1 of the texture files is being applied - Black_Metal.png. Oh, by the way, I tried this with both the .mbm and .png files with the same results - only the Black_Metal texture displays on the model. I am wondering if this is because I have 3 texture files and it's simply picking the first one alphabetically? Not sure, but I did check and I see that most parts have a few texture files...but their config files have code for alternate textures. So this may be a result of not putting all the colors needed in one .png file. Could also be, again, my botching something with the Write statement in Unity, or the Export statement in Blender. Once again, practice will make...less imperfect? I did right-click the tank just to be sure, and there are no alternate textures available in the context menu (which I expect; I don't have the code in the .cfg file); just putting that out here for posterity and to let you know everything I did. Anyhow, I am pretty confident that I can replicate what I'm doing enough to craft some parts for KSP now. I'm no artist, nor am I a 3-D modeler, but I can at least try! Again, thank you so much for the help! And I will check out the vids you posted above to see if I can pick up any tips/tricks!

Ok, so I am new to modding KSP. I am a software jockey by trade, so I figured the leap into modding one of my favorite games shouldn't be all that difficult to figure out. Boy, am I wrong. I followed along with the modding tutorials EsvDefcon created all those years ago, and even though technology has advanced, they were still easy enough to follow. I was able to use Blender to create a fuel tank model (first time ever using Blender), and I was able to give the model a collision mesh in Unity (first time ever using Unity). I got to the 4th video in his series about creating the config file for the part, and I had to take some liberties because he was using I think 0.24 and I'm on 1.8.3, so the config files are a bit different. Not so much so that I can't follow along, but enough to see the difference. Anyhow, I crafted the config file, and I put the tutorial folder in the Parts folder in the game location like the video says, then I launched the game...and the part didn't show up. So I thought "Hey, all the mods are in the GameData folder, so let's put it there and see what happens". Again, the part doesn't show up in the game. And I'm lost as to why. When launching the game, I can see the folder I'm using for this part mod show up in the loading list, so I know the game "sees" it. However, I'm just not sure why it isn't showing up in the game itself. My guess is that the config file isn't entirely accurate due to having to follow along with something 8 years old, but I don't know what I should do to correct this. So I'm asking for the community's help here with my very first mod. What do I need to do to get this part to show up in-game? Is the config file wrong? Do I have the folder in the wrong location? Have I missed something inadvertently? Config File It's short enough so that using a spoiler here shouldn't upset anyone too much. It's pretty basic, really; just your average, ordinary fuel tank. It's named part.cfg, and it's in TutorialMod/Parts/tutorialFuelTank. Screenshot You can see the folder structure here for the tutorial fuel tank mod I crafted. As far as I know, this should be the correct structure...but again, this is my first time, so I'm probably doing something wrong. If someone could please take a look at this and let me know what I'm doing wrong, I would be most appreciative. Thanks in advance!

Well, looks like it will be time to learn how to mod parts I guess.

What I'm most interested in regarding classes and leveling isn't so much whether or not you can multi-class, but rather if the types of classes expands. Perhaps we get a communications officer, or maybe miners?

The 2 non-part mods I'd recommend that aren't listed are MechJeb2 and Kerbal Engineer Redux.

I'm already planning to do Tylo last so that I can jettison unnecessary parts on ascent back to space. As far as Laythe goes, I'm going to let MJ handle the landing. All I gotta do is select where to land.

My plan for KSP2 when it comes out is to go through whatever tutorials are included so I can get familiarized with the interface and controls and all. Then I'll spend time just flying all over the Kerbolian system. And I'm sure I'll have bugs to report.

Granted. You also get to listen to the Vogon poem of peace, love, and understanding. As sung by the Vogon equivalent of Elvis Costello. I wish the Earth wouldn't have been destroyed by the Vogons to facilitate an intergalactic highway construction project for a hyperspace express route.

There is no way I can ask this question without it sounding bad, so I'm just going to ask it: What difference does it make what gender the kerbals are? It's a GAME, first and foremost; any gender identities you want to see or not see in the game are coming from you, not the developers. Why does the game even have to include anything specific such as gender when the point is to send these little green people into space? Gender plays ZERO role in the game, so why does this have to even be a topic?

I'm not sure what you are thinking about or how you are wrapping your mind around this. But you are still wrong. You only have to make 2 models: a solar panel attached to a rod, and the base of the panel architecture that the rod is attached to. When you move the slider, you attach one more panel to the end of the current array. That's it. Think of the word BANANA. A lot of people comedically stretch this out at the end multiple times, such as BANANANANANANA. You don't have multiple bananas here; you simply keep adding the syllable NA endlessly. Same concept. You don't have multiple models, you just keep adding the base model to the end of the array.

None, to be honest. But I am working on one! Hmm. Methinks @AlamoVampire needs to show up.

That is still procedural. Whether you add a full panel or a fraction of one, it is still procedural because the length or number of panels is variable based on the position of the slider.

Again, I will state that I'm hoping for someone to help me understand and learn how to mod so I can give back to the community. I hope.

Granted. I wish Night Court was still on television.

What I think I'd like to see in terms of procedural solar panels isn't just increasing length or width, but in changing from square to circular. Or at least having the option of having circular panels that are procedural in expanding or contracting outwards/inwards from the center. That would make for some interesting design considerations in the situation you described above. At least to me, anyhow.