Lack

@maybach123 You can get the latest build (with the An225 craft file via github. https://github.com/Signatum/SXT/archive/master.zip) Not sure when a proper update will be out, I'm pretty busy this week and then away for a conference after that. I made a nice fancy VTOL engine with a nice option to swap a Mk2 adapter in/out, but it makes the part really laggy and prone to spontaneous disassembly. I guess it'll have to stay as two parts. I couldn't figure out the variable geometry nozzle (without splitting it up into a dozen parts). Does anyone know how Porkjet managed it. Blender-based animation?

@maybach123 Thanks for pointing it out, there'll be a new craft file coming in the next version @V8jester I was planning on keeping it as a external command chair, it amuses me too much when they fall out (even if that is a bit bug prone). @m4ti140 Thanks. I've buffed the passenger cabins slightly with a weight reduction, reducing by 1t for the longer one, and 0.5t for the short one. Though they're not that much smaller than their Mk3 equivalent; the long 'Economy' version is not as wide, but longer and with similar crew capacities. If I reduce it too much then the tonne per Kerbal becomes too unbalanced. The cabin is certainly too heavy (I think it was balanced a few versions ago, but I hadn't checked the weights of comparable parts recently). I'll be lowering that to 2.75t to be in-line with KAX. The skewed elevons are a good idea. I'm half tempted to make separate articulated shock-bodies to provide even more freedom. @Kolago Seen an hopefully dealt with. @AJTheMighty @Ackoli Thanks! I might add another one. I quite like the electric aero engine reflecting the ion/chemical of the rocket parts. Plus, you can actually do quite a bit with that small amount of thrust. But one a bit more like the G4 or Siemens' new fancy electric motor mightn't go amiss.

@UMGaming Ah, I see where I've been going wrong with that part now. I forgot to copy over all of the files to the github version. You can fix it on your end and I should have some time over the weekend (been a busy few weeks). go to SXT/Parts/Command/Mk3Cockpit/ Make a copy of Mk3CockpitShuttle.dds and rename the copy Mk3Fuselage.dds Should work then. I'll answer the rest of the comments tomorrow hopefully.

If you have a look on the first page, there should be a link to it under the Mini-packs section. It should work alright, but I ended up getting annoyed with the part (didn't work with texture swapping, so had to have copies of the textures in the folder with it, so it was chewing up a fair bit of memory) so removed it from the main pack. I should probably take another shot at it really and get the top bit to line up fully with the backbone of the Mk3. But ramps can be a bit of nuisance to work with.

Yeah, it's a bit of a hacky fix really, and you still have to assign action groups manually. I wonder if you'd be able to fool the stock buoyancy system through either low mass, or changing the collider size (providing it actually tracks that). I doubt it'd be strong enough then and it doesn't do anything about splash-down. If you do find a better module for the flotation, do let me know.

@inigma I hadn't even thought that :/ I'll have a look into it. @NathanKell Ah, that would be easier, I wasn't aware of that was added. I'd tried making the raycatcher mesh the same shape as the probe, but that didn't work. I'll have a look through Tantares and see if I can find it in use. @StevieC I could possibly re-purpose the existing 3.75m tail-plane even. It's a lot of work though, so it'll be a case of when the inspiration hits.

Delete Goose.cfg and .mu in SXT/Parts/Command/Mk3Cockpit/ They did work on my end, but something when wrong when I put it on Github a while back. It likely won't be in a release candidate.

Yes, you can have multiple doors. Only thing is it'll favour one of them when using the EVA button on the portrait.

Most of the SXT should be alright, I think. Though it may be worth adding some of the props where specific KAX props are listed, e.g. for things like FirstFlight Here's a break-down of the SXT props (Still need to add the other 1 or 2 turbo-props I planned to bridge between the Hornet and Bear). There's also a little electric powered one based off the Airbus E-FAN. The thrust values are for FAR, I think I added a multiplier for Stock aero since it's still a bit soupy. Part names: Continental: SXTTinyprop Guthrie: SXTPWPT6 Jumo: SXTKO211Dprop Merlin: SXTMerlin66prop Monsoon: SXTKO211prop Wolf: SXTJ213 Hornet: SXTPWR2800 Bear: SXTNK12M If you just want to try those, there's a pack with them in. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/39086055/subpacks/Newer/SXTPropsandPlanes.zip

@blowfish I think I'll try with the B9AnimationModules for the .zip, then have module manager set up to replace it with the current one for the CKAN version (had problems with that one before). Yeah, I've never had much luck with heat-dependent animations, not entirely sure where I've been going wrong with that. @StevieC I'm not sure a whole new ramp is necessary (whole tonne of work for something very specific), but there may be room for an adaptor piece of some sort since it doesn't look quite as nice as the real life 124, 225s. @Preliator Possibly, it does go a bit fast, but given the size, it's the speed needed to provide a reasonable bit of G (I think it was either Mun or Duna surface gravity). Does make them a bit nauseas (but they're already green, so how bad can it really be) since the diameter is pretty low; really you'd want a ring a few times larger. I might put up a slower version later on. The VAB/SPH speed is due to the animation speed multiplier Squad put in. Not much I can do about that, afaik. @jojojona Maintaining different versions is a bit of hassle (they often get left behind went I update the pack); but I do have a load of Mini-packs in the OP already and did ask for nominations, so don't worry too much about it. I've added one with the Osual parts, the IVA and the wing parts to the mini-packs section in the OP. A few new parts: Alouette satellite, body and a roll-up antenna (Primarily for RP0). Getting the solar panels was a bit of work, ended up just hiding a bunch of the radial solar panels in the middle of the model. Not an elegant solution, but it does pretty much work. Animated airlock. Turned out to be slightly more fiddly that I'd anticipated and still needs some polishing. Based on a mash up of the Kibo and Quest, except I swapped the Kibo's doors the other way round. Rule of Cool and what-not. Should both be on the github branch if people fancy playing around with them: https://github.com/Signatum/SXT/archive/master.zip

Inspired by @hoojiwana's excellent overhaul of the stock RAPIER. I've tried my hand at a 2.5m RAPIER Engine (LANCER). The variable geometry intake is pretty much on a timer. I wanted it to run off of heat (a sloppy replacement for Mach number, which B9 does do, but I'm trying to avoid extra modules), but that didn't seem to work. If anyone has any ideas, please do say. There's a version for testing on the Github page. First image in the album isn't loading at the moment, so here's a direct link http://i.imgur.com/u64L36B.png

They work fine for me. It does look like you're actually using surface attachment, rather than the nodes, which would explain this. Try holding down 'Alt' when placing parts on the end.

If you go on github, there's a newer build. I might have fixed it there, I did some update work on the parts (like conversion to .dds), but haven't finished it yet. @V8jester Ooh, very nice. I should get back to LLL really; I had a lot of fun with it.

I think I changed something or other, I really should sit down and update the mini-packs, another thing for the Christmas holidays; I'm off work next week with not much else to do other than start quantifying and analysing the pile of data I've accumulated. I was wondering if it'd be possible to have github/travis-CI automatically sort out some .zip files for them whenever I make a build. I installed t-Ci and tried looking through a configs other people had made for their mods, but it's all Greek to me, I'm afraid. @nosefirsteverytime Yeah, I'm not sure about moving them forwards of any of the rover parts, but they're quite nice to have and it makes sense to have at least some sort of ground-based vehicle. Perhaps a combustion one of sorts, that'd help prevent against extra-planetary usage.

Was looking at the tech-tree integration for SXT, seems it's needs just a little bit of an overhaul. Things like engines and fuel-tanks being moved to separate lines completely passed me by. I've done a little bit of moving things around so far (see latest commit to github), so if anyone has any ideas feel free to say/make pull requests. I was considering moving the trucks forwards in the tech-tree, and moving some basic light plane parts to the start node so you actually have a reason for the airstrip at the start. Need to check some of the old 'experimental' nodes since I found most of the 5m tanks just weren't in the tech-tree at all any more.

Basically, it used to be a node in the stock tech-tree (same one that the Mk1-2 pod was under), but Squad have since removed it. Either it wasn't mentioned in the patch notes, or I missed it at the time. Seems to have been replaced by commandModules. I'll have to go through and check what techtree nodes need updating, I haven't used Career mode very much. If you go to GameData/SXT/Parts/Command/MEM/ you can change in the .cfg files (use Notepad or the likes to open) 'TechRequired = largeControl' to 'TechRequired = commandModules' Then they should appear in the same one as the Mk1-2 pod.

@Goody1981 Thanks. Heh, it's certainly been a fair amount of work. I think they should be under 'largeControl' for the tech-tree. Though I should probably check if that's been depreciated, there's been a few nodes in the past where that's happened. @minepagan Not a bad shout, I'll see about adding it in. @123nick Glad to hear it's working for you now. @Phineas Freak Yeah, I'd been playing around with travis-CI to see if I could have it autobuild a .zip and upload it to Kerbalstuff when I make a release. Though I didn't get very far with it, so it'll be an issue on my end. Merged it anyway, thanks. @AntiMatter001 Yeah, I need to fix that. It comes from FAR and stock handling orientations a bit differently, I tested the part with FAR, so missed it at the time. It also puts the lift force at the wrong place in stock. I would definitely recommend trying modding, it's rather fun.

@123nick Essentially, yes. Though if you've used pre-1.0 one from the OP, you'll need to delete that one first since the folders have moved. (So delete the one under SXT/Parts/Mk3/ or whatever it was under). The newer one is designed to run off a normal SXT folder (where the ramp is normally disabled and a replacer config put in that swapped it out for the new ramp in any existing craft), so should be in SXT/OldParts/. It loads fine for me anyway. Edit: Has anyone noticed any issues with the MEM. Someone's been having problems with it (and other command pods with integrating engines) automatically activating when they launch the ship. Not something I was able to replicate on my end using the 32-bit on XP or win8, they were running 64bit on Linux.

I removed it (in the basic SXT it'll swap it for Porkjet's one). However, I've made a separate patch that'll bring it back. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/39086055/SXTMk3Mk2Ramp.zip I've added the deployment limiter to it as well. It's a bit of a shame, but it had a number of bugs. It was also one of those parts that refused to work with the the texture-replacer bit of the part-loader, so it had to have it's own copies of the textures in the folder. The extra RAM from removing it seemed worth it. @minepagan Very nice. Glad to see it getting some use. I've been wondering if it'd be possible to get props to spawn out of IVA mode, else I could model some static ones in. @CrisK Thanks. The heli and the Spectre are really nice as well. Not sure I fancy being that kerbal on the ladder, mind. @Aivoh No problem. I fixed most of the things you PM'd be about (the forum emailed me it, actually one of the reasons I came back to check on things). @Phineas Freak, That'd be great, thanks. I always like having people help out, takes a bit of the load off. Still need to fix LLL up actually, perhaps I'll fiddle with it a bit over Christmas.

@Phineas Freak, Ah, I'd changed that from CrossFeedEnabler after someone said that wasn't supported now. I'll have a look at it (hadn't even heard of ModuleToggleCrossfeed). Though I haven't actually played KSP since 1.0.5; FO4 happened. @V8jester , Thanks. The buoyancy slider from FS should still work as well, but the plane I tested it with was fairly light so maybe it's not enough for heavier builds. Don't suppose you could tell me the value for the resistance later on?

@V8jester, Don't worry, I haven't removed the current floats. There were still two old cfgs from before I redid the models, they haven't been used in months and just sent an error message to the console on load. I'll try the vertical offset, I'd only tested one of my old designs briefly and it seemed to work alright, so I didn't give them a proper run through. That's a very pretty plane though. @curtquarquesso, Yeah, I uploaded it at about 1am and promptly went to sleep. I haven't checked the forums in a while tbh, I'd sort of assumed the changeover hadn't gone very well. It crashes my phone's browser, and I couldn't log on via my desktop so I just left it. But it seems to just about work after some fiddling around. I'm sure I'll get used to it. Is there a way to set custom colours for the forum? It's offensively bright unless I turn my monitor's brightness down. I'll upload some pictures of the redone Osaul parts (with colliders that actually work, non-convex colliders seem to be set to convex by default, so let me know if people spot any other models that are acting a bit funny) later on.

No problem, that was probably my fault for not pursuing it more at the time. I got kerbalstuff to work after re-installing firefox, it was probably an outdated noscript messing with it.

@Lemur, That'd be a problem on Kerbal Konstruct's side. Not much I can do about it (or even KSC++, can't get any assets I export to load with it now). @Franklin, No, they used to be tied to the landing leg module, but that got changed in 1.0. So the module genericAnimation doesn't tie to the staging (though there were some changes to staging in the last update, I'll have to check with Nathen). @Cerbis, Same happens with FAR (lift point is correct though), there's some discussion a few pages back. The stock aero probably calculates from part origin. It'll likely require a different model. The folding will have to operate on an honour-system. @Stevie, Ah yes, I had been planning to make that part. Well, after I've played some FO4, now that I've found out that you can turn off the god-awful mouse-acceleration and change the FOV.

Not sure, haven't tried it yet. There was SXT to get working, and then there's a certain Bostonian wasteland calling. You'll probably need to update the Firespitter version, but the rest should be alright (in theory) since I'm not really using any stock assets here.

I did in the 23.1 patch, but I suspect people might still miss it. Perhaps still a little vague The EAS 316 is a lightweight observation pod that works in the same was as the EAS-1 External Command Seat. Features a 'No key' start button, though that just means that the pilots have normally gone back to the KSC to find the non-existent keys on launch. That could probably be whipped up via config, though you wouldn't have a double length IVA. But using imported IVAs essentially 'as is' is never quite as simple as you'd think, things get lost in translation in the whole .mu->Blender->Unity->.mu The EDF's usage I worked out with some back of the napkin calculations involving the Airbus e-Fan's performance/weight with a similar craft in KSP. But I seemingly didn't account for just how overpowered the solar panels in KSP are. Yeah, you're probably right. At the time it was to counter 'woobly noodle' syndrome, but the stock joints have improved some since then, so it can probably get by with a lower mass. @davidy12, I like the idea, but I fear the 'die' may make it a little bit too morbid.