SpannerMonkey(smce)

Hi actually gimme a day or so I still have it somewhere and it still works, buried in one of the many installs i'm currently using.

Hi, there is already a Vulcan in BD armory continued, while i have no problems with adding extra parts I'm not really interested in adding things that already exist elsewhere. The missile turret is on the list for the next update

Hi, a couple of things , regarding the chute alignment, this misalignment seems to be because the actual chute joint rotates, with the SM eva chutes (which the one in the images was derived from) the chute attachment is locked from rotating and the chute turns with the Kerbal and i believe it's the same for vanilla chutes (yes it is just checked). The chute joint isn't in the SM chutes on the center of mass of the Kerbal, it's right up near the Kerbals shoulders. Regarding the propulsion, when i was trying it out (making a para sail) I made a chute pack with a shielded propeller motor built in, it wasn't issue free but showed great potential, if I've not binned it I'll send it over. I've been wondering if in this case a force applied to the chute may work more effectively than a force applied to the kerbal, it would in any case prevent the chute being dragged behind in flight, thinking on though, it's likely to need a force on both the chute and the Kerbal.

Hi, give your part a name you can easily find in the log and re run the game, if the part does not display quit the game immediately, go to the main KSP folder zip a copy of the KSP.log and make it available for download. Or see if you can find your part in the log, it will tell you why it didn't load. If the model didn't display it's likely that it never loaded at all. this could either be due to a problem with the texture or the model itself, i gather from the CFG that it is just a cube? A very simple part at least, in unity all you need to do is fit a box collider and assign the material/texture. So little info in your post it's difficult to say. Good policy for getting assistance is to describe clearly what you are trying to do, what you did when trying to get it into the game, what the parts is, supply a copy of the log and always helpful but mostly overlooked are screenshots of the parts unity set up. Cheers PS this should really be in the modelling and texturing sub forum rather than a plugin help sub forum, it would be seen by more model makers there

Best of luck and we''l keep a hangar spot warm for you.

The real issue here though and something that could be MM cfg'd away, is most if not all turret mounted weapons have a minimum pitch that is usually a couple of degrees below zero and up to ten below in some cases, one thing that should be common to all turreted airborne weapons is that they are restrained to a smaller safer arc of movement in which it's impossible or extremely difficult for self assassination to occur , simply restricting the depression or setting it to zero would alleviate the primary reason turrets can shoot the craft they are mounted on, it wont stop the detection issues but render it less of an issue. With all the development taking place on BDAc I'd imagine that even this will get better over time. I'd often wondered about some smaller radial mount type Gatlings etc but apart from curiosity value i could never really see a use for them, but with HWP's a prickly pear with radial turrets scattered around and only able to shoot outward from the craft would be quite entertaining i feel

The funny thing is, this mod is a toy pure and simple, it's not as if you could stage a ground combat challenge with ten Kerbs per side and have them slug it out, much in the way the BD Ai challenges are run. IF that was the case I'd see some relevance to re-balancing, and should the day arrive I'd be glad in fact more than willing to reconfigure every weapon down to 65% of it's real world value, as would be suitable for the Kerbals, anything other than that level of balance is totally irrelevant. I must be missing something, because i can't see that instead of shooting a part of a destroyed ship half a dozen times to make it go away, that having to shoot it 3 dozen times somehow adds value to the mod. Correct balancing for KerbalKombat would be desirable but until some clever soul works that code out, then I'm quite happy for individuals to alter the weapons to their own tastes, very easily done with MM cfg's without ever touching a part cfg, but I'm not rebalancing to anything other than 65% If i ever do, why ruin one of the most amusing ways to remove scrap for an irrelevant balance. The likely reason for the color change is that the texture isn't loading correctly. The AK74 is a different shape than the 47 similar silhouette granted but much lighter and slimmer that's what 30 years of advancement gets you, so much for realism eh

Or be able like the Liberator to use the Vtol as Stol without the craft heading for the stars, however you do it, it MUST be capable of level ish fwd flight without things like TAC, If it i isn't then the Ai will not be able to fly it in combat. . In the interests of fairness the only interventions i decided that are acceptable are minor performance enhancements to ensure that the AI has full and proper control. and definitely no interference in any setting or function once the craft is under AI control Some rough guide parameters for the combat craft, based on the results of last nights destruction fest. ONLY 1 Weapon Manager and 1 AI module per craft please, having more does not make your craft more durable, only 1 AI and 1WM can be active per vessel per combat, that's the way the code works. ( oh and a PS it would be nice if they are placed in a easily located position, some are a bit tricky to get at should a launch go amiss) To beat the current provisional leader ( i say provisional as its a terribly one sided comp at present) Ideally, your craft needs to be able to fly at around a minimum of 100 ms. Ideally, It needs to be able to take off well before the end of the runway. Once airborne it should be able to climb to altitude in a reasonable time frame, the current leader reaches combat height quite quickly, and it's your call of course but if your leviathan switches into combat mode at less than the minimum combat altitude there is a very good chance of unwanted and sudden ground contact. Leading to the loss of the match. PLEASE set all your AI autopilot units to a minimum height of 1000 mtrs ish, this allows the craft space to maneuver safely under AI control and without being babysat until it reaches a safe altitude. Please be aware and cautious when placing turrets, try to avoid placing turrets in positions that are occluded by wings structures or other turrets, several times last night the combat craft shot themselves more times than the enemy. Getting shot down by your own guns still counts as a loss in my book, especially as I'm running the fights best of 5 giving plenty of time for each craft to show it's merits or lack thereof. Finally as a point of interest to all competitors, the weapons causing the most damage/kills so far. First the BDAc PAC 3 intercept missile (no real surprise there though, they are nasty) , and the biggest surprise, the Airborne Laser System. The least used so far are any of the projectile weapons, close combat with these things is very unlikely and all fights start at the max default distance, so maybe a reduction in guns over an increase in countermeasures is in order, I'll leave that for you to decide. Please note these are not competition rules or instructions, purely information to be acted upon or not as is your choice Looking forward to the next episode

Hi, very simple answer to this problem, do you have module manager installed? If so then the part cfg you changed isn't the one the game loads, when MM is installed it copies and stores all the cfg's modified or other wise in it's cache files, and it's this cache that controls what you see in game. To change a cfg with module manager installed, edit the cfg, then go to the GameData folder and find the module manager cached files, there are 4 of them, delete all four. then go to the main KSP folder find the PartDatabase.cfg and delete that too, restart the game. A new copy of the MM cache will be written that includes your changes and a new PartDatabase.cfg will be written. If you are not changing weight or dimensions you can skip the PartDatabase deletion but any size or mass changes will need a new drag cube to be calculated, otherwise even though your cfg says the turret weighs 1 tonne, the game will still think it's 30 tonnes.. Hi was looking at this animation and thought yes it would be nice if that would actually fire in that manner, rather than being stuck with all 3 barrels discharging at once , which is the stock behaviour for BDA'c turrets. I've made some advances in turret set ups and hierarchies recently and there's a good chance that i can make the thing work as per the animation above. To do it of course id either need a unity ready model or even the base fbx or whatever it is. If you're interested in seeing if it could be done let me know. I'm expecting that you could have the two outers firing as one and the inner would be independent and fire as a solo, sadly I cant give an and/or choice, so if it's done 2 fire and 1fire it will always be 2 and 1 and never all 3 simultaneously. Whats very likely to happen though is that the WM will automatically switch between them as it cycles through the fire recoils reload cycle. as that is the pattern I'm seeing elsewhere. cheers.

Hi the big snag with the mu export to blender is that while it's a great tool, especially for mod restoration were the original assets are lost, it does mess with all the transform rotations, and relevant to your post sticks concave colliders on everything it imports, no biggy once you know what's junk and what's supposed to be there, the point being is that what you see in the exported file is, in my experience, not the exact file structure that leaves unity, close but no cigar.

@Adelaar Hey. i reduced the weight down to 168t and the situation is much improved it can take off quite smartly but still not quite enough grunt, so i swapped out two of the wheeslys for a couple of panthers which also help with ctrl authority. @drtricky a little weight reduction for Civilizer too, and in the process moved the com half a meter further fwd which eased the stall, and added a row of those tiny basic fins along the tails trailing edge, sorted. Both craft ended up within 5 tons of each other and with Civilizer being the heavier So with 4/5 going to Civilizer Preliminary round one goes to Civilizer 90% of which is likely caused by the still lack lustre combat performance of Liberator, make it faster!!! Though not a video the gif below accurately represents the combat yup but in truth at the time it wasn't really flying, more falling with style

Hi, as these fights seem to swing on who gets the first good shot in, I'll drain a goodly bit of that fuel, it'll brighten the performance for sure.

I'll mess with the settings a bit more yet, early days. But i reckon this is one case in which function needs to exceed form by a large margin.. A missile doesn't care how pretty you are

Before you read on please understand that i have no bias, i don't care who wins, my only really interest in this is in the performance of BDAc and the mods that use it as a backbone. Apologies if any of my comments seem harsh they are not meant to offend only to inform, but admittedly my PR skills can be a bit Dockyard rather than Boardroom Hi guys, well the good news is yes my rig can fight two of these things... The bad news is that with the exception of the Civilizer, the Titan and the Liberator the AI struggles to fly them, and the only two that can really fight are the Civilizer and the Titan once again. I think you've got to make some compromises in the rules, or change the emphasis, for this to be valid the AI has to be able to fly the craft firstly, and secondly fly it in combat mode which is a little different than just flying in lazy circles. I've not been able to load the Flying Tank or Devilfire as i still appear to missing parts, but the others have all loaded and been flown crashed, flown some more and attempted a fight. If your primary means of motion is vertical then the AI can't fly it, if it's underpowered the AI can fly it but not in combat mode, if it's not got enough control authority the AI can try to fly it in combat mode, but it will eventually fall out of the sky. You see were I'm going here, while your VTOL is all cool and everything it's pretty essential that the damn thing can trundle down the runway and lift off under it's own steam. The Liberator is a lovely looking thing but woefully underpowered, by the time it struggled off the runway Civiliser was 8km away and had turned to start it's attack. when in the air in patrol mode it's fine but the moment it switches to combat mode the only place it's going is down, virtually no lift to speak of and no control authority at all defeats the AI completely The Freedomizer refuses to do anything than crawl around under AI control, why? because you have two control systems and systems fighting each other. Multiple weapon managers is not recommended behaviour, 1 per craft is plenty, more than that can cause huge control issues for the AI, and a couple of times i switched back to the craft to find it using another WM than the one originally set oh and more importantly it's only any good at going up, not so hot on the fwd which defeats the goal before you start . The Civiliser gets lucky but is prone to stalling in combat flight has a problem wit yaw control and once or twice managed to shoot itself down. The best of the tested bunch by far is the Titan I know you've all put some serious effort into the ships and in and of themselves they are great, but if the AI can't fight them it's all just ornamental. As a first step towards proper conflict would be to create a control HWP that can be downloaded and tested against any proposed candidate, at least then it's a given that it can fly, and fight and the challenge becomes a thing, if you can beat the control in a best of 3 it's good to enter, otherwise the Titan will likely destroy it before it gets off the runway, just a suggestion as i feel there has to be a minimum level at which you say, this craft is junk back to the drawing board, not for me to say though. I'll leave for you lot to decide how you want to proceed as I'm quite happy smashing up your creations

@njmksr Hey, I'd be willing to set up an install and see if my machine could manage it, i have the time, or will have later on today, point blank i refuse to make anything today lol, so yeah, I'll drop you a line and let you know if it'll work

@TheDestroyer111 Hi i gather that you're bored must be to pull up that quote from more than a year ago. At which time it may have needed MM to apply the weapon manager, in fact it did, iirc, use it to apply the WM to the EVA'd Kerbs, before the EVA manager plugin and subsequent developments. The situation with BD FPS is currently in flux, with Jester working his buns off he's not had time to spend on the mod, or the thread itself. For the past couple of updates i been responsible for making them happen including the SpaceDock updates etc. As for github repositories, for purely part mods, don't see the point, I'm happy to take balance suggestions but have a fairly competent group of testers who use this mod for RP scenarios etc and I'm quite happy with the balance, it's a given that there's some silly stuff mixed in but not half as OP as they'd be if i was left to my own devices. Regarding bug reports, any i get are acted upon, but there's really not a lot to go wrong, the only real snag is the dependence on those two other mods, and the issues that they throw up. I'm sure i did a U 100, pretty certain, just no clue where it went. Assault rifles are generally a nice thing to add as they are shaped appropriately for the Kerbs little hands, it's been a while since I've done any new stuff for this, and once the dust of 1.2 settles I'll be passing through pretty much everything with texture and detail updates. I'll put these two on the request list, and see if i can find that U100

It can if you use the water spawn markeri posted a couple of pages back. Still can't say what your issue is unless i see a log that implicates the mod or other related system

I know you , me and many other too. that said there's still room for innovation within BDAc and some of the things that have in the past been declared impossible have actually been done, with some careful unity hierarchy manipulation some very cool things are possible. IE combined fully functional missile and cannon turrets for things like the Tunguska are now a thing, Ballistic missiles with trajectories that were declared impossible(within the current code) by Baha can now be built and be very accurate indeed. So try it mess with the hierarchy there may be some way that somebody has yet to think of that would allow it to work, who knows a fresh set of eyes may unlock that secret too.

Sadly as the code stands that's not currently possible, it's been tried so many times, by so many different mod makers. Right now the turret rotation and pitch are run by a turret module, this module only acts as a slave, so the turret doesn't point the gun, the gun points the turret, and the real kicker is that the turret module can only function when combined, in one part, with a weapon module of some type, it sadly will not function any other way. I've tried using turrets for cameras and search lights, and it's a big fail , Baha himself stated that it would never work and now having come to know the code a bit myself I can see why. What you can do that works quite well is make a simple turret, just a nicely militaristic box, give it a decent amount sas torque, mount it on an IR free docking washer, glue a radially attachable gun to the turret and it works quite respectably, of course it has basic point and shoot functions but cant access the advanced stuff that comes with a full part. But as an idea yes it would be cool, but i think that it'd take a complete rework of BDAc to make it happen, and perhaps it'd be better to derive some ideas from BDAc and start afresh with the modular target in mind from the first

You have the mod installed incorrectly you have removed one folder too many the path should be GameData/Eskandare_Heavy_Industries/Carrier_Vessel_Expansion/Parts/Nimitz/nimitz NOT GameData/Carrier_Vessel_Expansion/Parts/Nimitz/nimitz The mod makes use of the MODEL() node and as such with the installation as you have it the game cannot find any of the parts

I'm going to have to see a log file or two in order to see what is happening. The earlier craft has parts from SM Marine, if you haven't installed that mod then you wont have the parts, IN the large boat parts modern folder you should find a resources .cfg check you have it and check the mass value of the resource. If that is present and correct then you DO have something interfering, evidenced by the fact that it submerges exactly as it should when tested. Only one thing leaps to mind as a maybe though , how are you launching the sub? in certain circumstances vessel mover can actually hang up and not place the vessel correctly leaving it suspended above it's natural floating position. Is the vessel able to move once launched? Hi, sorry for the slow reply, busy elsewhere.. yes so the new parts, I've been holding off until the official launch of the 1.2 update in order that when it does arise there are no nasty surprises, and along with that LBP update will hopefully be the inclusion of the sinking system. Also relevant is that SMM will also release at the same time so all the masts, stairways, ladders, oddly dimensioned panels will be around to build the pretty ships. There's a rumor that it ma be this coming week, so we'll see. You couldn't do this in 1.1.3 thankfully quite a lot of ship type activity is possible in 1.2 once you figure out the rigid connection and cheat in unbreakable joints for the launch. It's better but still not like the old days...

No tin foil hat here, just an observation.

Something that may give a hint of some smoke and mirrors type behavior and perhaps some explanation of the visual anomalies regarding horizons was something i found in the 1.2 1553 change log namely " Extend the visual horizon a little. " which seems to point to some system in which the visuals aren't tied exactly to the planetary dimensions

As we've now established many times over that silo's will never be a stock thing, here's the reality of mods and silos They can't clip through terrain in anyway apart from decoratively and are very difficult to place, If it was clipped through the terrain the ship would also be clipped through the terrain and as such is just an explosion yet to be triggered. Placing them is a matter of finding terrain of exactly the right shape to fit the model, which at this time in the game has no option other than to be a KerbalKonstructs run static, not to say it's static because it's not, The terrain basically need to be a bowl with a depression that is deep enough to accommodate the actual tube part of the silo while having enough elevation in the sides of the bowl for the model to blend in seamlessly, or as close as can be managed or more likely can be deemed acceptable. then there's the size issue, the bigger you make the silo the harder it is to place , making it less and less useful. That said there once was a mod for this and here it is alive once more in 1.2

This one does not have anything but stock and LBP https://www.dropbox.com/s/wpkrr69bemnskrb/LBP subBallastTest 113.craft?dl=0