SpannerMonkey(smce)

Hi all , once again I've been asked to take a look a reviving this, " too late" i said "already done". Now the thing with this is it's not like any other mod I've dealt with, as a community project many many different people, some active, some long time gone, contributed to the mod as a whole, if you look into it what license it does have seems to indicate that it's ARR to each particular creator involved. This being the case how would this be managed? how could i plug in the life support without trying to contact and failing in too many cases to contact each contributor? Not getting the permission of just one, would according to the rules prevent the re animation from happening. So I cant find anything in the forum or mod rules that deal with community projects, So could I just waive any rights I may be presupposed to have and just go with that original ARR to each contributor??? I don't want anything from it , it's just so pretty to have around, pity there are no original asset blocks around as I'd love to add some things without needing to jump through the against the rules exporting deriving and reimporting hoops. So there we go if anyone can answer the above questions, favorably and with some authority, we can have it back, if not enjoy the pics of what anybody willing to do the small changes can have but not share .

I'll check the patches and I may have to make some clearer definitions, as to what is what. That said what you are playing with is not technically even released to work with LBP or SMM I have the only valid dev patches at present and they are not on GH SO the results you are seeing are quite out of date.

That in all likely hood had nothing to do with the mod but everything to do with the game hating large submarines, usually they get torn part with bits going into orbit and mostly only the tower splashing down. The crush effect is a large and violent explosion with a blast radius incidentally tested at 200 mtrs plus, so not a small bang by any means. I have not added submarine parts to any of the patches as the subs are balance critical and you can't randomly mess with the values and still avoid disasters. I have a real beauty that i simply cant use because of the forces the game subjects it to when submerged

It will only crush your sub if you use parts that have a MM patch that gives the appropriate value or module, there is no way it can crush anything unless specifically told to do so, the effect is not universal. Some sadly does not represent a bug report, I will say that I am unable to replicate this behaviour having launched at least 30 times this evening.

This on the other hand will end badly. though as with a lot of my pics everything is not as it may appear

There are a lot of new parts incoming although not specifically those parts you mention, but enough to keep a couple of quality ship builders busy , still working out the things that they can do with all the new parts. I've still only scratched the surface as to the things that WILL be tweaked, changed, phased out, improved, remodeled, re textured, or just plain added, I've in some way looked at most of the modern parts, and almost all of the parts required folder has been added since I have taken over maintenance. I've skimmed through the WW2 parts, but as most players and user seem to like the newer style the efforts are better spent making the modern parts the parts they've always had the potential to be.

If you fancied another alternative you could try using Kerbal Konstructs and the part I posted slightly further up the page. personally i never launch with vessel mover, even though i support it's use, I have a much easier time with KK and the custom water spawn.

Ah that's a pity she's only a tiny thing too, destroyers are usually less prone, so I'm a little suprised at that, but thinking on I really haven't spent the time on the WW2 stuff that I should have, so that may bear some examination

All you can do is heed the lighter smaller advice, as mentioned elsewhere, the smaller lighter ship and boat mods don't suffer this problem very much if at all, I can't remember the last time a SMM hull went airborne unless heavily throttle provoked. I wish there was some insta fix, but we've been playing this game of roulette since the demise of ksp1.0.5 and we've found no easy answer, and much bigger and better brains than mine have tried.

I was going to have one more go at stirring some motivation, read back a bit more, wrote the bit below and then thought NO, I've got it, reading back shone the light, it's not an ideas guy problem at all, it's just yet another daydreamer....

Known KSP bug and hopefully fixed in 1.2

Sadly yes they can do that, please read back a few pages and there is a lot of advice given for combating this. It is unfortunately a known KSP bug that modders have little control over and certainly are not the cause. With luck, they tell me that it will be fixed in KSP 1.2

Just wait till you see the full package in action, video of that soon to follow.

GoOnrails used to be, cant be sure today, the state of a vessel in time warp, or out of render range , usually vessels in orbit are on(or where) on rails, but i don't understand how coming off rails( the opposite state) would be beneficial in this instance. That logic though pretty much describes the test findings, with the inactive (not controlled by the player) but now unparked (so technically as far a the game goes) flying vessel falling out of the sky when un park is set . There are only five states I believe that can describe a vessels situation plus the mirror inactive states, so perhaps it is just a way to define a vessel condition not natively described in the games code, as you have to assign some sort of state to the vessel that's just unparked itself. aside from that I'm as in the dark here as you are.

Edited following the previous post, that'll teach me not to leave posts half finished

Ah just like a real one then But bloody marvellous, is that a timing trigger that i see rotating around the perimeter, I'm only seeing it through the gap between the two lower left cylinders. There seems to be some interesting stuff going on round the back too,

Hi yes that's pretty much exactly as i expected and the change over should be easy, BD produced so much that it's almost impossible to know exactly what all of it does, thanks for the very useful find and info. I do most of my newer cfg's that way, it makes texture and folder sharing extremely straightforward and trouble free, as well as opening up the option for easily swappable textures.. There no reason to use that method if you don't intend to do any of those things though, and the mesh=model mu is fine, though i hate the ambiguity (what the hell is model.mu in the log when there's 60 of them)

That is a very nice alternative, and I didn't know that the BD animation module had a texture switcher feature, is it set up in a similar way to firespitters? if you know that is.

Sounds like that you were simply out of communication range of whatever antenna you had fitted. and therefore was unable to control the probe until communication was restored

There are lots of situations in which Airpark would be unsuitable or dangerous to use, You cannot park a rocket in flight Removing the velocity from an orbiting rocket simply means that you'll be returning from space a lot sooner than you thought. Airpark was never intended to freeze time and I don't believe it should, you have a pause button for that. I have used Airpark with a lot of Airships and aside from bugs that affected everything else not just airships, which have since been dealt with, I've had no problems, my main reason for originally salvaging Airpark was for use with airships,( at the time I was doing at lot of part work for the HL Airships(hooligan labs continued) ) as they take so long to get anywhere, and it is in this function that Airpark works extremely well. Any patch that applies Airpark to all pods or a particular part should be marked as an extra, rather than a default inclusion, even without any more module additions the ships below are pretty unmanageable without part commander. I've dozens of craft Airparked around KSC especially very large ships and marine craft, and will continue to do so. Everything in the images below is Airparked

Never cease to be impressed by your next steps, looking fwd to seeing that come to fruition.

I notice that the image features six cylinders, are you noticing any better performance, stability or smoothness/lack of vibration from using multiples of 3 , triples and sixes being well known for turbine smooth running. Probably not as it's KSP but as we get closer to trying out these amazing things, i think it relevant to know if the simulation bears any reality to the real world of infernal combustion engines

The small retractable gear from 1.0.5 is not just retextured it's a whole new model. The only way for them to be re added to 1.1.3 is if somebody re exported and completely rebuilt the parts hierarchy using the new wheel colliders and modules. As it stands a set of landing gear for 1.0.5 is totally incompatible with KSP version 1.1.3

Hi what this will be is the wheel blocking mechanic, due to very unpleasant interactions between unity and KSP in the current version the wheels have been given a large safety area around, them, this is great until you want to mount the wheels in anything like a realistic way then you can find a situation in which the wheel is disabled, I have no clue how you console users check context menus' on pc it would be a right click on the part and a check to see if the wheel shows blocked. The only way to fix it is to move the wheels away from any overhanging parts or parts that could come close to the wheel when the wheel is turned or moves on the suspension.

Great news, welcome to the wonderful and occasionally frustrating world of KSP mods