SpannerMonkey(smce)

Well i've no idea how it's used of course but I'd have thought that the surface attach would be on the surface rather than on the center line of the model and offset , this being the position at which the Sonde attaches to things, rather than things attaching to it, in fact in this instance it'd work better left undefined, so I'll give that a quick try . well it works for me , and here it is https://www.dropbox.com/s/g1kxo8xywm195ez/Kurrikane.zip?dl=0

Sounds more like the part is offset from it's origin, I'm just running it through unity to see if it was, the mu exported wildly off center but thats not that unusual., well it seems ok now, the surf attach pos is all wrong but that aside seems ok. Hopefully I got the right end of the stick let me know if indeed it is correct and i'll shove the changed file your way

Not that simple sadly, the armor is still in development, and as such (to most users ) is an unknown quantity. For a part to act properly as armor the model has to contain a specially named and rotated transform, which in turn needs to be referenced by the armor module in the cfg. The only way to add the transform is at the unity or modelling stage , as the hierarchy is built upon it, it is not possible to add it once the part is turned into a mu and imported into a game.

Hi the closest you'll get right now is a structural plate with a tweakscale module, flat procedural panels have truly horrible z fighting problems which is likely why there aren't any. There are various sizes and shapes of scalable structural and armor panels in SM Armory and SM Marine. and likely other mods too Do note that in regards to BDA and Armor normal structural plate has the armor value of wet cardboard, only properly created armor is shell resistant

How do you want them implemented? smart dumb cluster?, Dont get me wrong the models look fantastic but they're a bit overdone for bombs, a disposable thing, Weapons are chosen for the function (usually) not because they look pretty That said it's fairly simple to get them BDA ready great stuff, happy booms

And don't forget chaps that DDS is flipped vertically in relation to png, Which is what caused LG's weird textures above Yes you do

Hi this is due to either an incorrect installation of BDA or you are using and incompatible version of NKD for the BD version currently available. Every new version of BDA requires that the NKD plugin be updated also, I'm not aware of any recent updates to NKD (apart from the 122 recompile i did for a previous version of BDA ) and it is this that is likely to be a cause of your problem,

The APU requires liquid fuel and intake air OR LFO for orbital use, it's not magic power I'm so happy with the way it works that the next mod collection of mine features vehicles powered exclusively ( less a starter battery or course) by the APU code as it can be used by many types of engines, so before you can even move the vehicle you have to start the engine/APU

It has an auxiliary power supply that can be used to supply EC for the wheels, but no there is nothing currently that replicates the functions of ICE (the mod with the engines) and MMW after all it wasn't anything you now can't do with a module manager cfg, all ICE did was create a resource call it torque and have the wheels use that instead of EC

Sorry to report that as far as I'm aware it's very dead now and has been for quite a while. I also recall the license being fairly restrictive which is likely why it didn't get adopted TTMW wouldn't work even if you found an old copy as the wheel collider system has changed so much since their creation that all they'd be likely to do is explode on contact with any surface That said KerbalFoundries are providers of the best wheels available for KSP,

Hi really doesn't matter where the supporting code ends up, expansion, 1.3, or whatever I'll convert them just the same. Makes no difference to me.

Hi, of course module manager is the way to go especially in the beginning, a nice easy to follow example has just been released that does pretty much the same as you'd like to do, but in decidedly un stockalike paint scheme. In fact it'd be pretty much replace the included textures with your updated ones change a texture name or 244 and off you go

Kerbal Konstructs was and is updated by GerSpace, there is a thread for it. It is being looked after by another developer as the original creator (AlphaAsh) is currently engaged in making mods for other games and a game of his own. Any version other than the official version is unlikely to function as well as the current release does Which runways and launch sites you end up with is determined by which packs you downloaded and installed, not all packs feature all parts, to get all the runways and launch sites you need to have the main bases pack installed If you do have the main bases ( and there are no other undisclosed issues) and it still does not work, a copy of the KSP.log will be required to diagnose the problem

Hi this may be a cause of some of your issues, as they should work, KK is very sensitive to the game environment and running with faulty mods can seriously cause you and KK some problems. If a mod doesn't work either find out why or remove it from your game. Even if it doesn't appear to be affecting your game it will be, either directly with messed up functions or by simply constantly writing errors to the log I've been using KK for ages and never noticed this artifact button Also while KK is not that memory hungry Kerbinside is, and form your crash log it looks like the cause of the crash was simply running out of memory You seem to have just over 4gb? Thats well below what I'd recommend for a modded install and must admit to some suprise that you even managed to load KK and kerbinside and still have decent performance The ideal log in order to further diagnose what happened is the KSP.log Your log simply shows the environment not the game as such, a point about that, Overwolf is pretty hungry by the looks of it and I'd consider not using it while running KSP through steam with such low memory reserves

The mod as it is is only dependent on BDA in order to work in any version of KSP, IF there is a BDA version available for the KSP version you wish to play then this mod and all similar expansions will perform as normal. There are some minor exceptions but there are no version related problems with this mod that I know of.

That is because technically there is no native ICBM capable weapons within BDArmory. and until very recently it wasn't possible however certain talented mod makers have been able to bully the code in such a way that an accurate ish representation of high altitude long range ICBM flight can be obtained, you will need to look to other weapon mods for those The best viable alternative if you want to stick with purely BDA is to check out the modular missiles that have just been created by @jrodriguez, they allow for the creation of any type of missile you can imagine from simple air to air to long range strike missiles Check these links to see if it's for you https://github.com/jrodrigv/BDModularMissileParts/wiki https://github.com/jrodrigv/BDModularMissileParts/wiki/1.-Building-your-first-Modular-Missile https://github.com/jrodrigv/BDModularMissileParts/wiki/2.-Adding-a-modular-missile-to-your-plane.

If you have the latest version of BDA then it is likely that the no explosions are due to the NKD not being updated to match the BDA version, (something I've done as a user service in the past due to PEW using the nuke FX , however my time with PEW is ending and I'm reluctant to spend anymore time in that direction) NKD is coded in a way that means every BDA update does (in order to remain fully functional) require a recompile of the NKD code and plugin to match the latest version. The problem of no explosions is an NKD problem not a BDA problem. The missing textures is likely an installation problem as all textures are present in the version i currently have.

If this mod does retire when stock Kerb chutes are a thing, I'll likely convert all the models over to use whatever the stock models use, as they will not be a straight swap module for module, the model orientation is different for VNG chutes than stock chutes.

But does it float??? (and by the way chaps imgur album links now work again)

Thats a bit like asking what style of haircut you prefer, it's really all down to personal likes and dislikes. I use 3dsMax and find it works for me, I've tried all sorts of other things along the way but nothing really does the job for me like max. Many however use Blender and would never use anything else and I'd say more KSP mods come via Blender than anywhere else and it's the program 99% of all the tutorials are for, then there's sketchup, Maya. Wings3d and a host of others. SO you choose whats works best for your brain I'd say get your modelling and texturing together then worry about Unity especially if you've not done 3d before, 1 learning curve at a time As it stands you can use any unity version from 4.2.2 to 5.4(last check) each have their benefits or downsides too, newer versions can't animate emissives natively, so a lot of people are still making rocket engines in 4.2.2, as the workaround color animation editor that comes in the part tools is a lot harder to get good engine heat fx from than the earlier type curve based animation (IMO) . The later versions have better shader options, part tools has a couple of handy toys included too that are .not in the early versions. I use 5.2.4 for almost everything these days though

1 it'd be a great addition but I'm not sure if its possible without the part not being a static. I've messed with several games that do this over the years in one way or another and in all cases it results in much much larger and more complex files as there is usually some requirement for a build stages animation or some way to approximate the passage of time and project completion, 2, I think it'd make the code a lot more complex as the plugin would need to monitor where the static was placed, something it currently could nt care less about. BUT I have often wished for the texture switch module to be able to work on a static model, enabling a texture switch would allow for user switchable maps for the simple stuff I say simple stuff as the kerbinside current method of texture application does not favor this option as most models use disparate textures rather than any unified texture map. Things like base parts hexpads etc would work well wit a texture switch as they have an all over texture application, Hi there hasn't been a tutorial for KK since it was Kerbtown, That said it's not difficult to make KK statics, if you have a basic level of skill with 3d and unity it's a breeze. . Any 3d program that exports in a format unity can understand can be used doesn't matter. The models are fairly simple, animations are possible but tbh it's been so long since i've done an animated static I'm not even sure if the old methods still work. Basic good modelling practices should be observed, as KK can get upset ,losing it's ability to save or launch properly by seemingly insignificant model problems. Things like loose edges, detached vertices, too many objects or colliders can all cause ongoing problems. So simple is good, the fewer objects and colliders you use the less the static will impact a game, for example 1 nameless static in the kerbinside packs has a greater effect on the game than the 4km long multiple part static bridge(shown elsewhere in thread) purely due to the nature of the model and colliders that define it . Actually a good way to define the best style to use would be to describe it as a low poly environment, yeah sure you can have 1000's of polys but the game ultimately feels the load, so you get a bit tricky and use things like alpha cutoff shaders(unity things) to simulate many polys where there are actually very few, the cranes in my statics mod use this to the max and without the textures they are horribly simple models, with very little definition to the mesh Models are aligned in the normal unity way with the bottom being the bottom, rather than some odd rotation. Not much more I can say, apart from that if you decide to make some statics I'd be happy to help resolve any issues you encounter

Hi although the future weapons pack adds sci fi type weapons, they are not technically rated for orbital combat. The reason for this is simple, BDA itself is set up to deal with atmospheric and ground combat not space combat. While space combat is possible with current turret types (with many restrictions and limitations) BDA type missiles are currently useless in space. That said JR's modular missiles addition does make it possible to create space capable missiles

Thanks for the note , fixed now

IS dead and will I believe remain so . especially now as the JRs modular missiles makes it somewhat redundant. However that only deals with the flight in space, it does not deal with targeting, the two being completely separate issues. BDA's current target acquisition is not very effective in space as it is completely balanced around atmospheric weapons. The calculations required to accurately hit another orbiting body are, I'd imagine, of mech jeb levels of complexity. Enabling in space target and tracking systems would likely double the amount of code in whats a very complex system already, and I think I can speak for the coders on the team when I say " pull requests welcome here" All that aside Baha deliberately didn't attempt to fix the missile as it did not fit his vision of where he wanted the mod BDA to go, and I've a feeling( just an impression) that the current team have a leaning the same way