SpannerMonkey(smce)

I had a touch of this today, while switching between vessels, most of the parts were disjointed, as if the nodes had been turned to an elastic connection. No clue whats going on, never had it happen before, I'll have speaks with dunc and see if he's got any ideas. And this Testing the new elevator and side access hull section for the Large Boat parts mod, this is one of several new parts that will be introduced very soon. The little animation glitch on the ramp deploy is due to the animations getting confused, the ramp has two positions and, as then, sometimes it hooks up between them, ending up at a point somewhere in between. That aside it's all good, a very lightweight craft was used to speed test the elevator, as it's very easy to have it too fast and leave the craft being moved hanging in the air, and light craft show the tendency to hover more than heavier ones. The lift has no weight limit, so if it will fit through the hole it can be lifted and stored.

I know, slightly confusing, it had me guessing at first too.

@gomker When you set Autotpark to true the vessel will come off rails when you switch to it or come withing physics range and in doing this Airparked becomes false. To set a vessel so that it remains parked when you switch to it, only set Airparked true, not Autopark, I never use the autopark feature btw Ps nice pics gomker, thanks

First and foremost check that you have installed it correctly, check the mod folder to make sure that there's not a nested GameData folder. and finally if these should fail post a link to downloadable logs

Hi, you're welcome, and great that you've got it all sorted, and welcome to the wonderful (frustrating) world of IVA creation

Now that would be great, especially if it could have some text output , or even output the completed cfg's. Seems like it'd be a great way to have many more mods with contractible features, i for one would use it for LBP contracts

Hi, in unity on a scene of your choice click the tools tab at the top of the screen , it will if part tools is installed correctly show a KS part tools tab. Click it, a litle gui window will open, and there you can find (once you've set the gamedata path) all the props and iva's that are in your game. They can all be spawned into your scene, there are 3 parts to the window Props spaces and setup, fairly self explanatory. Simply spawn an IVA in your scene and it already have all the instruments etc in place, and you can add or subtract as you wish. Once complete the created cfg is saved to the prop cfg for the IVA you are working on

you can just delete that and let MM generate a new one, MM produces them first time it runs, and you really need to delete those mm cfg's every time you change anything, as they record the crafts modules and parts. It is always best to let MM write it's own than paste in one that may contain incorrect or incomplete info

Thing is , there is nothing preventing it being modular, well there is, the skill of the person putting it in game, there are literally hundreds of free to download models converted to ksp, just have a look on spacedock, and with very few exceptions they are total rubbish. Define rubbish. Rubbish, download model, scale and rotate for ksp, put through unity , give it a large and broken collider and import it, give it stacks of sas torque just so it sorta flies, ah not forgetting the ludicrously powerful engines( even a brick will fly with a million HP ) and then call it a mod. KSP is all things to all people, so it doesn't matter if it's not popular, all that matters is that the individual who made it wants to use it. (why else do modders mod) To get even close to working correctly you have no choice but to chop it up into sections, it's the only way that you can balance the thing, and certainly avoid the awful collider abomination that forms most FTD models. One of the earliest KSP enterprise models had a collder that covered the entire ship, yes 1 collider, so you couldn't really attach anything to it, and it was no more than a curiosity, didn't even qualify as a toy it was so badly done. Just from the image above I reckon somewhere in the 10-20 part range I reckon, to include working weapons and hangars, detachable parts and other toys which it would need to be anything more than ornamental would take a goodly length of time

How about yes as long as it doesn't result in horrible z fighting, which is the case with a lot of the replica aircraft craft files I've downloaded

There are requests and then there are bespoke items that nobody else would want to use. Generally requests take the format of items that are or are likely to be used by a variety of different players, the items you are requesting are of such an odd specification that most users of this mod, and any other weapon pack I can think of or that i manage would be unlikely to use them. One item like that is a maybe, 6 items, all different, and i bet you'd like them looking different as well, are you mad? I have a suggestion, get yourself a paint program and a text editor, take examples of both turrets, which are already in mods elsewhere, repaint in your chosen color, and alter the cfg to suit your unusual specification. There are side issues to your specification too, ammo weight for instance, heat management etc etc, yes you can override all of these things, but every time you do it's less likely that anybody other than you will want to use them. I think you are forgetting why or maybe you don't understand why mod makers make mods, primarily mod makers make things that they want to make or would like to use, the fact that they share the items they make is a bonus. Currently I have zero motivation to spend the best part of a week ( although it's likely to take longer)creating these unusual parts, never mind texturing, exporting balancing etc Why? because I find the items to be of such a spec that I'd be throwing them in the junk folder as soon as the set up was finished ( i had considered what kind of hourly rate I'd be prepared to make them for, i thought 26ph 'd be good, then i remembered, that i don't do things I don't enjoy, no matter how much you pay ) TL,DR hahahahahahhahahhahaha you're a funny man,

In that case your problem is quite unusual, as most users find that smaller vessels are not so much of a problem, and the Airpark method has proven quite reliable even under extreme abuse. I would definitely be checking logs for NRE (null reference exceptions) and anything that could possibly be a contributory factor. If you'd like to make available a copy of your logs for me to download I'll gladly take a look and see if anything leaps out.

Hi you are no alone, there are many reasons why this is happening, but please read below, I have made other comments regarding this throughout the thread since i took over, there are steps you can take to make it much more bearable. I seem to having anomalously good luck, been quite a while since I've had an airborne ship, and i build a lot. I will say this though, that any others errors you may have in your game due to mod problems will, it seems make things so much worse. so check out your log, check and rectify if poss any errors and try the things outlined below.

OK thats better, the answer is no, nothing a separate install of KSP has done is affecting your game. Have you updated any of the mods in that save? if so that's a problem. AS mods for the current versions are not compatible with 1.0.5. If it's not that, grab a copy of the log for that 1.0.5 install and zip it up and I'll take a look. Might not be anything that can be fixed, but it may just be something silly, are you 100% sure that you didn't change anything in that install? (i know, I'm going on a bit, but best to be sure )

Hi not exactly from your post what you are doing, are you trying to run a 1.0.5 save in 1.1.2/1.1.3 ? or are you trying to run a 1.0.5 game with mods intended for 1.12/1.1.3 ? Either way it's unlikely to work, there have been rather large and comprehensive background changes to the workings of ksp, a lot of parts were changed, every bit of plugin code had to be changed. And if you are looking for support for 1.0.5 it could be hard to find, almost every mod has now updated to 1.1.3 as it's the sensible thing to do.

Hi ideally you would set it up with action groups, to use the VTOL to its best you need to shut off the main thrust engines (fwd of course) Also the position of the wings has a large effect on VTOL use, there are iirc 3 position nodes for mounting the wings, for VTOL use the aft. most rearward of the positions functions most effectively, the position of the wings dramatically changes the balance of the craft, and while the most forward position is a good all around place, it does limit it's VTOL abilities, either way, the other team member's stuffed a load of sas torque in there so you should be ok to for slow fwd/aft hover no ,matter in which position the wings are mounted

Gentlemen i present for you consideration only the second working combination of missile turret and anti aircraft guns. For a very long time this was dreamed of but never could be made a reality, this upgrade to the existing PEW 2K22 Tunguska AA Turret CIWS, the missile pods are now fully functional , due to size constraints a new missile the 57E6E has been developed to fit and operate in the missile turret launchers (note to self, find some way a disabling destruction effects on missile launchers) Special thanks go to @harpwner for unlocking the secret.

This is not the forum you are looking for, perhaps you'd be better served visiting the Space Engine forums

The Carrier parts mentioned above and all the LCS parts are currently being tested, this is taking a lot longer than I'd have hoped as finding reliable testers who can give accurate and sensible reports is not that easy, the couple of guys who help out are doing sterling work, but my output exceeds what any normal person can deal with. They do the testing currently for LBP, SM Marine, Boomsticks, BD FPS, PEW, OST, NED, and just added to the list is the recent Stryker Aerospace and Armory acquisition. Just testing that lot is pretty much a full time job, sadly people have real world lives to deal with first. I'm not expecting it to be much longer, but I'm sure you rather have a decent update than a halfassed one I would post a gif of the carrier lifts doing there thing, but with imgur embedding begin U/s and the forum doesn't like gifs in posts so it'll be still

Sounds like you tried everything else i tried, someone deserved a win considering how long it;s taken until someone made it work. As for not making a Tunguska I think you should, regardless, PEWs is OK, there's a few areas I'd change, and it's still missing the main antenna, I've made one, just not sure how to mount and deploy (but aside from finishing the turrets, tweaking and tuning the missiles, unless LP has new stuff hidden away there wont be any real additions) . Putting all that aside you and I both know that our customer bases tend to lean towards one mod or another, I know there are those warlike types who use everything, but mostly they all have favorites, so your customers are very likely to want one of your own fine products , especially as there's another example of a multi mount weapon (for lack of a better name) around.

@harpwner Just popping in to say thanks for the turret tip. and i hadn't tried nested transforms before and of course confirming it isn't a fluke, it's reproducible elsewhere!. The PEW Tunguska has just come alive for the first time. Cheers, and damn good find

Okely dokely that;d be bearable i still wanna put two on but hey. Things changed in a huge way today, the two weapon turret is a reproducible thing, not a fluke, done right it works perfectly. Very Very happy bunny 2 x 30mm autocannons and 8 ground to air (and anywhere else) radar guided missiles, such a wonderful toy and so much insanity has been made possible Not a relevant image but who doesn't like a nice large unexpected explosion every now and then

hi you could always do that most uncommon of things and read the first post of the mod you installed, which actually has operating instruction in the very first post ( no really dead easy to find right at the top and LG even gave it a heading labelled Controls: I know, what will they think of next?) and they are as follows. Controls: Next camera: - (Minus) Previous camera: = (Equals) Exits hullcam view: Backspace You can change these keys by editting \Gamedata\HullcameraVDS\Plugin\settings.cfg To view through the eyes of your Kerbal(s): EVA the Kerbal Right-click on it Select "Activate Camera" Press "Backspace" to deactivate the view. I suggest doing this in space, as walking around on Kerbin ... well ... the view can be quite dizzying. lol Also, first person view does work with no problems on a a command chair. Also, if you right-click and drag while in the view, you can 'look around' a little. Keep in mind that if you are cycling through all the cameras, then you will cycle through ALL the docking ports in range, not just those on the active vessel. So if you have a space station with 10 docking ports, you will cycle through all 10.

I would like it to happen without adding a plugin too, and the day that Squad fixes the EVA interaction issues it will work that way, but until that day we can wish and hope that the fix comes sooner rather than later.

That there is a nifty idea