little square dot

You can either use crew manifest to transfer Kerbals in, or the invisible hatch, haha... If you put a kerbal in a pod and go to the launch pad you'll find it. If you look at the escape pod closely you can see the bottom of the Mk1 Pod from which I have borrowed the hatch. I actually never tested it to make sure that kerbals can enter, but they can definitely exit, so I assume entry shouldn't be a problem. I appreciate that it's a tad awkward, but I'm afraid the options are quite limited when working with welds.

bac9, I understand that you are very knowledgeable on these things, but please try to correct people with at least some degree of tact. Your posts tend to be blunt and come across as hostile in tone. Knowledge need not come with an inflated ego, and certainly does not preclude politeness. I really don't think that developers should be having a negative impact on the tone of a discussion. Just soften it up a bit man.

My pleasure, and I bestow a "POST PICS!" upon you as well.

Cheers mate! POST PICS!!!!! =)

Yeah, we discussed this in the first few posts, and as sidfu said, an alternate version without portholes was released to address the issue. It would seem as though the lighting mechanics are slightly messed up to begin with, and seriously effed up by some of the welds, which appear to reflect the light in odd directions while magnifying the intensity exponentially. I noticed this in testing, but I also thought that the modules would look rather bland without portholes, so I released the parts avec les portholes, fully expecting to make a pack sans les portholes aussi. Download link at bottom. Download Station Parts v1.static_portholes_removed_add_your_own! (^^this^^ version has had all of the pre-placed, static portholes removed, both to improve performance and to give the player the freedom to place portholes in areas of their choosing, which will also result in the player having the ability to turn their 'internal' lights on and off.)

They're just models. All engine parameters were customized and manually added to the .cfg. The thought of escape pods with LFO propulsion and fuel tanks just doesn't seem right to me, but you can edit all of that in the .cfg if you like. Simply add LF and O capacity, copy the parameters from whichever LFO engine you like, then tweak 'til your boat is floating.

Sure, we've all been after SQUAD about the 32-bit thing for a while, however that's a restriction that we all face, yet people are having vastly different experiences regarding the performance of this pack. GPU's and CPU's play a major role as well.

I hear you guys. Really. I don't see how this is a problem though, because those who run into performance issues can simply discard the parts that are causing the game to chug, as you did. As I said before, I haven't had any issues with performance, so long as I don't use a bunch of the more complex parts on the same station, and it doesn't make sense for me to reduce the options for those with higher-performing pc's simply so that those with slower pc's don't have to delete parts. I did post a second pack without portholes to address performance/aesthetic concerns, but beyond that I don't plan on reducing the number or complexity of the parts. I will however be more mindful of performance in future releases, as I don't want those with older pc's to feel/be excluded. I don't have a beast of a machine myself, so I sort of assumed that what works for me would work for most, however given some of the feedback that I've received, I suppose I should not have made that assumption. Admittedly, I didn't even consider this as a potential issue until I noticed in final testing that a few of the descriptions took up nearly the entire length of my screen, but the descriptions weren't exactly high on my list of priorities as I was ironing out the wrinkles in the welds, and I forgot to revisit them before releasing. That said, I don't think that it's beyond anyone's ability to open a config and delete a description or parts of it, although of course ideally the player shouldn't have to. I will keep this in mind when updating/in future releases. Thanks for the feedback. =)

Sounds so ominous..... Ha! well sure, when you put it so ominously. As for your hurting brain, you don't have to use all of them you know. =) I know the feeling though.. I started brainstorming ideas for a colonization pack last night, came up with a lot of stuff, and my brain is hurting simply because I know that I will feel compelled to create all of it. That'll be two more weeks spent in notepad... I'm a sucker for punishment.

I really feel as though there needs to be a discussion and consensus reached re: kerbal architecture. This is fun to explore for a bit, but it feels decidedly un-kerbal. I would imagine kerbal architecture to be wonky and impractical, perhaps not unlike: or or ^^not by design of course.. more likely due to blueprints that were drawn using non-uniformly, slightly rounded rulers.^^ or

That's very un-kerbal of you. If you're unsure of the angles don't reduce output; add more panels! Omni-direct that shizz. =)

Eve is far too pretty to be a true venus analogue. I'd love to have an awful looking hostile wasteland of an analogue... in addition to Eve of course, not as a replacement.

Has anyone managed to take a look at the 'sans-porthole' pack in KSP yet? The pack should be ok, but I'm a wee bit nervous about having posted a pack that I wasn't able to first test in-game. I would prefer to avoid distributing any broken parts. Also, if anyone ends up using these, please post pics of your stations! I'd love to see how people make use of the various bits, and I'm also curious as to which bits will see the most use. This will help me to better plan my next offering.

?? Extraordinarily impatient are we? I believe to OP posted yesterday.

I will look into this further when I get my KSP computron out of storage later this week, however a quick glance at the Station Science mod's parts leads me to believe that adding the following junk to a (sciencemodule).cfg would do the trick: MODULE { name = ModuleScienceExperiment experimentID = crewReport experimentActionName = Crew Report resetActionName = Discard Crew Report reviewActionName = Review Report useStaging = False useActionGroups = True hideUIwhenUnavailable = True rerunnable = True xmitDataScalar = 1.0 } MODULE { name = ModuleScienceContainer reviewActionName = Review Stored Data storeActionName = Store Experiments evaOnlyStorage = True storageRange = 2.0 } MODULE { name = EurekaProducer rate = 1.0 minimumCrew = 3 } MODULE { name = BioproductProducer minimumCrew = 1 sciPerDay = 1.0 kibbalPerDay = 2.0 bioPerHour = 1.0 kibbalPerBioproduct = 1.0 } MODULE { name = KuarqGenerator rate = 1 chargePerKuarq = 90 } MODULE { name = SampleAnalyzer reviewActionName = Review Analysis Results capacity = 1 evaOnlyStorage = False storageRange = 0 kuarqsRequired = 20 kuarqHalflife = 20 txValue = 1 } RESOURCE { name = Kibbal amount = 160 maxAmount = 160 } **Disclaimer** I haven't tried .22 or the Station Science mod yet, so I could be talking out of my rear.

I have added a version of the pack without the static, permanently lit portholes, however I haven't been able to test it due to the reason mentioned above. Link can be found in the initial post, and I would greatly appreciate it if someone could test it out for me and let me know if there are any errors. Cheers.

Sure, but I won't be able to do it for another week or so. I'm currently moving and my computer with KSP is in storage atm.

Cheers. Thanks for downloading lads.

Thanks for the advice bac9, but you've really missed the point entirely... and frankly you're being a bit of a fun-vacuum in the process. All I was looking to do with this pack was to create some fun parts that both the stock-purists and the mod-friendly peeps could play around with, and I personally enjoy the challenge of making all-stock welds. Within reason, I didn't allow performance concerns to enter into it until testing, at which point I actually trimmed a lot of the parts down significantly, but I still put aesthetics first in many cases. Despite this I didn't have any serious performance issues in testing excepting those times that I was intentionally pushing the limits, but regardless, this is all beside the point. I do understand that a part consisting of 30-something stayputniks will run more poorly than a single, simple donut-shaped model, as I already alluded to above, and likewise, I'm not so delusional as to think that using 32 lander cabins just for their windows in order to make one greenhouse module, is in any way performance-friendly. Clearly this was never the point. There are quite a number of people who won't touch mods with a 39.5 ft. pole, so all-stock welds are something that everyone can use, and they can always be improved and manipulated by myself or the end-user, in addition to which they don't require constant updating in order to remain compatible with KSP. I'm just trying to have some fun, and hopefully provide some parts that others can have some fun with as well. As for the polycount issue, what does this have to do with my advice to use the debloater mod? These parts are all-stock, so people will benefit from using the debloater to free up RAM, and this has nothing to do with polycounts.

Trouble is that only one light per part will toggle... t'is the nature of the weld. Only one EVA hatch will work, one animation, etc. because they're all single parts. I actually almost released this pack sans portholes for the very reason you mention, in addition to which I dislike how effing bright the portholes are, and each additional light seems to increase the brightness exponentially. I think I will release a second pack with placeholder models where the portholes should be and let people attach them themselves, as this would make them all toggleable. It would also increase part counts, although even still most modules would only be 3 parts, which shouldn't be unmanageable so long as you're not making 100+ module stations. I should also point-out that some of these parts are made up of 50+ models, so it's a good idea to avoid going nuts adding the larger parts like the "inflatable" rings, the greenhouse etc., however also keep in mind that while the larger parts can be quite laggy in the VAB/SPH, they actually perform a heck of a lot better in-game.

As I was posting I began to think the same. I will heed your advice... tomorrow. =) Thank-you kind sir. I'm glad you approve.

At the venerable the Department of Placing Things on Other Things, we have been hard at work on a project intended to further encourage the placing of things on other things, including stuff. To that end we have developed a mighty snazzy series of space station parts utilizing a highly advanced system of assembly in which the individual components of each part were placed on one another in order to create the assembled part, but enough about that... without further ado, the DoPToOT is proud to present our all-stock Space Station Parts Project! Included Parts: (more details/pics to come shortly) The Escape System The Modules Radial Bits Transit Bits Trussy Bits The Utilities (Before you get started, I strongly recommend that you use the debloater mod to reduce the size of the stock textures.) ((welding is a finicky business to say the least, and often a slight correction to the alignment or position of one model causes it to interfere with the functionality of another, point being that it is possible that I missed some bugs, or created some bugs by quashing others, so please speak-up if you notice that something's amiss. I tested everything multiple times, but some of the welds were quite complicated, so I could have missed something. Also, let me know of any ideas or requests that you may have for additions/alterations to this pack.)) Download the DoPToOT Station Parts Pack v1.0 Download Station Parts v1.static_portholes_removed_add_your_own! (^^this^^ version has had all of the pre-placed, static portholes removed, both to improve performance and to give the player the freedom to place portholes in areas of their choosing, which will also result in the player having the ability to turn their 'internal' lights on and off.) DoPToOT by little square dot is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. (Do whatever you like, but play nice and share... or else.)

Ha, that was me a year ago... although I did manage to crawl in to work every day in order to avoid a pink slip, but sleep was in very short supply for a few months. Eventually it dawned on me that what had once been a fun way to wind-down at the end of the day had become a compulsive behaviour both before and after work that wasn't really enjoyable at all. Then I discovered moderation, allowing me to both be an ordinary social primate and play KSP. Imagine that! I love moderation... moderately of course.

Why don't you just rescale them? Open the part .cfg and add rescaleFactor = 0.5 or whatever. Also, making parts smaller won't break saves. It might make vessels look weird if parts are changed or rescaled, but given that vessels load parts by name, everyone's saves should be perfectly fine if the devs decide to officially rescale the parts in future updates. Only changing part names or errors in the .cfg will breaks things, so as long as the part system hasn't been re-written in a manner that renders previously valid definitions invalid, I wouldn't be too concerned about size(that's what she didn't say).

KAS allows certain parts to be attached on EVA, but welding is .cfg based.