SpannerMonkey(smce)

Yup, if you look again at the image i posted you can see the thrust transform is not inside the model, although admittedly , it's not the best angle to show it And although you can literally put a node anywhere you would not really want one right on a transform, but in the case of a rocket type engine that may be staged you could. What i meant to infer that your node placement issues can be solved a modern way instead of the horrible old node coordinate system as below the indicated shown transform is the point at which other parts will connect it should be a child of the mesh not the the GameObject, So GameObject/Mesh/ nodes transforms extra bits etc

Hi, still need to see how you've set everything up in unity and the cfg for the engine. Also if you want the nodes to be perfect use a placed transform, unity gameObject instead aligned so local Z points away from the model and reference it with NODE { name = Node1 // or whatever your transform is called , does not matter, transform = Node1 // or whatever your transform is called , does not matter, size = 1 method = FIXED_JOINT } I suspect though that you've either blocked the thrust transform with a collider or have local and pivot confused with global and center leading to an incorrectly rotated transform, OR you cfg's messed up. Thats wrong but unimportant , should just be the mesh name, no file path and no slashes and should end in .mu If that paste is correct your brackets are wrong you have no closing bracket, this will likely mean that the cfg only loads to the end of the FX module and cant read the rest Also when pasting cfg's in order for them to makes some sense please use the code tags <> at the top right and paste your cfg into the window that appears , as it is now it's impossible or very difficult to read.

You'd be better off starting a thread to ask about this rather than hiding what could be useful info in 4 year old post. Re everything else without seeing the cfg, and a screenshot of the unity set up it's difficult to say

Hi, theres a small code change required( at a minimum) before this mod will run successfully in KSP 1.3.1 . It is not something a user can fix . Please be patient Also as far as I' aware the surface sampler has been causing problems for a long time , and needs a proper looking at by a coder, I 'd advise that you miss out all of the sampler files .

Hi been posting this image off and on for 5 years, and it's been helpful to many Things to note the thrustTransform must be outside any colliders , if it is inside a collision box then thrust will be blocked . Like all KSP the names are pretty much irrelevant as long as the name in unity thrustTransform is the same as used in the part cfg You can fit as many or as few thrust transforms as you want , but for best performance you must ensure that they are symmetrical, oddly placed transforms result in oddly vectored or imbalanced thrust Engines in KSP are always aligned as in the pic above.

Skellingtons everywhere , evidence that we are not alone!!

Doncha just love serendipity, I was just about to load it up in VS and thought I wonder if, and lo you have , Cheers

Doubtful, but everyone can read your log, including you and the answer is there for all to see. Happy Kerbaling

Hi a quick look at your log shows you are running KSP 1.3.1 with mods that are not just incompatible with KSP 1.3.1 , but have compatibility checkers built in that will actively stop them running in KSP 1.3.1 It's a fairly safe bet now( now the update fallout has started to rain down) that any mod that creates a custom category or a gui button is going to need recompiling. In order to get your game running remove all those mods you have installed and ONLY install mods that state that they are 1.3.1 ready.

Hi due to last minute changes to the release version of KSP 1.3.1 pretty much every plugin needs recompiling to KSP 1.3.1 Dlls , Vessel mover will indeed require a recompile before being able to used in KSP 1.3.1 . Mods that do not create buttons or custom categories seem to be the best bet for getting a working version of 1.3.1 KSP. Or you can do as i've already advised, and don't install it unless the mods thread specifically states it's 1.3.1 ready.

That's a bit like asking to meet the inventor of the wheel A lot of cooks have had a stir at the pot . As for the who, a look into the BDA repo will tell you everything you need to know.

hi, have you built it, the code into a plugin? and tested it? does it work? I do keep mentioning this, but nobody seem to be listening, there are some major projects underway in BDA that potentially effect every part of BDA, and would advise 3rd parties interested in creating enhancements to BDAc to thoroughly investigate the BDAc repo, branches . issues and the milestones in order to gain an up to date picture .. Hi the current build was tested in 1.3.1 pre release and was found to work well. In order to provide further assistance please read the first post of this thread regarding bug and error reporting. ie KSP.log etc. The missing tab does indicate either a problem or an incorrect installation. Also regardless of what Squad has said in the notes, it's a fairly safe bet that, unless a mod specifically states in it's release thread/Github it is 1.3.1 ready, it is not I don't think i've ever seen that except in cases when a weapon manager is destroyed while leaving the aircraft intact, this effectively removes it from the BDA team list. We'll need more info ,logs etc that feature an event as you describe in order to see what is happening . Also could you please turn on the BDA debug labels, as this provides a lot of extra info in the logs .

Hi have you checked the comprehensive BDAc in game instruction manual in the KSpedia ? This was constructed in order to provide all the info you need in order to fire any missile or drop any bomb. If you have checked the instructions and it still refuses to function please see the first post of this thread regarding the info we need about you game etc in order to provide constructive advice .

Hi thats a known unity gotcha with high poly (lots of faces) imports . though I'm surprised it did not create the mesh divided into large chunks. Another way to do this would be to duplicate 1 engine nozzle in unity and save it as a prefab, (simply drag the mesh into the assets folder to create a prefab) then using a little bit of easy part manipulation you can reuse the prefab nozzle as many times as you want without needing to import larger and larger models or lower poly counts . It worth noting that your 1 part has more geometry than many, completed stock. ready for launch rocket ships

@The_Right_Arm Very smart, love the details, and bonus points for the nice mix of mods. I suppose given the troubles users are having finding those odd turrets , i should take a look at the NAS list for holes. More than happy to add ship equip of any sort to the request lists ( if it's requested there's a better than 50% chance of it happening, may take a few months sometimes ) , so if there are those things that perpetually trip up the quest for details, just drop me a note ( if there's images info all the better) Haven't done a large turret in forever . Keep up the good work

This item might not exist or is no longer available Texture replacer however will have no impact , so something else is happening. Also when placing ships using vessel mover, use the tab key and move the ship to the lowest "fine" position then using the throttle keys gently lower the ship into the water. All my ships including the now 470 part lizzy are launched either using vessel mover or direct launch to water using KerbalKonstructs and custom water launch points. You do have KJR installed? Worth noting that in order to hang together during launch the hulls use the largest and strongest nodes in game, size 7, parts with a low size value such as stock surface attach parts (usually 1 or 0) are unlikely to survive a launch attached to a craft that is as heavy as the carrier. There are certain rules regarding attachment masses that we cannot escape, unity imposes order of magnitude restrictions on joints, ie , for a secure and stable joint parts can be no lighter than 1 order of magnitude lower than the part they are attached to, so a ten tonne part can securely have a 1 tonne part attached, but you can find that an antenna weighing only a couple of KG's will flop around when attached to the same part For screenshots using imgur for example simply paste the direct link text into your post

@TheKurgan, hi and thanks, while the the wheels have been around a while now they're part of the huge stack of parts i've made and never released, part of the trouble with having more free time than is decent. You can see them running over some custom terrain here

Hi If the built in landing gear functioned correctly, that is like landing gear, with suspension and foot aligning to terrain then I'm afraid you are out of luck. Post KSP. 1.05 it is no longer possible to have more than one wheel collider per part, and landing gear uses wheel colliders to align the feet. The best you can get now, with stock modules is the deploy animation, for all the legs, albeit without suspension and foot alignment . However if you want to include a little dependency you could probably make it work using KSPWheel, the code that Kerbal Foundries uses, this enables you to have multiple suspensions and wheelcolliders on one part

They are pretty close size wise Aim 120 3.7mtrs Aim7 3.7-3.6mtrs depending on model

I've a feeling that the answer is no, unless of course there's a weapons pack I don't know about. It's a bit long in the tooth really, unless you're building period stuff , having reached a peak of use around the Vietnam era, many Air forces have moved on to better things. There are however plenty of lookalikes in various mods, with a little bit of model node magic a texture and cfg tweak you can easily make one

Hi, sorry to hear this still happens for some players, sadly for us how the hulls behave depends on what mods you have installed, any mods that change water physics or buoyancy will in quite simple terms screw everything up. Should that not be the case( ie you know you have no such mods installed) the carrier is a little too light and ideal needs a good lump of ballast water added. Also worth noting is how it behaves depend very much on how it's balanced, just because it's massive does not mean that little things like COM can be ignored. Ideally some pics of the craft, in order to rule out the obvious would be helpful . Scaling parts like rudders and drives can produce unexpected results, ( the rudders get very buoyant,(and cause runaway steering effects) and drives get very heavy when scaled up) and although the parts come with tweakscale I'd much prefer that they weren't scaled. It's also been noted that reaction wheels/SAS being turned on can actually amplify the problem rather than mitigating it. Turn SAS off and see if she settles. Those points addressed, and if none of those is applicable, further info , such a ksp version,LBP version and a copy of the KSP.log will be required, otherwise I'll just be guessing

Hi, a deployed antenna using EC, can someone explain why? Lets consider the process, when retracted it consumes no EC, during deployment it consumes a small quantity of EC to run the servo, stepper motor or whatever process deploys it. Fully deployed but not transmitting it consumes no EC, I'm taking a guess that like most deployable equip I'm familiar with, even ISS antenna are locked in pos once deployed and therefore need no outside inputs to stay deployed . How does it work? quite simple, antenna extends using servo motor control and rotates or telescopes out, until fully extended, at full extension there is a register, a cut out(notch). Opposite the register is a single action solenoid connected to a plunger, at full antenna extension the plunger drops into the register, locking the antenna in place, and at the same time opens a relay that shuts off power to drive motor. Oh look extended and using no power. To retract a small charge is applied to the solenoid, the plunger retracts fully, activating the reverse circuit and the antenna retracts, done. As for knowing when the antenna is retracted, a simple micro switch takes care of the problem via a relay or two. I cant see which part you'd expect to consume resources when not transmitting. Constantly feeding EC to something that can't move would certainly lead to heating of components and reduced lifespan. If Aerospace antenna follow similar design rules as marine antenna then they'll be simple stupid in design and rugged, not something requiring the constant monitoring and maintenance of something constantly powered up

Any positive effects? or no noticeable change.

Hi, it may be of interest that the BD pilot AI (written by Ferram) does not use yaw at all, all direction control and changes are by combination of pitch and roll Very interested in seeing where this goes as I've a number of (mod custom built) drones now of various sizes, and some other purpose apart from the occasional dogfight or recording GPS co ords would be very welcome.