hoojiwana

I think Vens Revamp doesn't use Module Manager for it's part changes so that may be causing some conflicts with mods that are using it.

I did that totally deliberately. Honest.

Not recently. The Mysterious Cylinder I got to 90% done (saturation of the white needs fiddling with), but I stopped for a while. Don't worry it was for a very good reason, and things will start up again soon enough. Expect a small update once 0.25 lands whenever that is to bring parts in line with the update, most notably the part research costs. Some time after that v12 will come out with new parts and some balance tweaks, and around then the probe parts will be released too. Which comes first is entirely down to how many probe parts I decide to make and if they get finished first or not! I may also sneak out a little something extra that I'm not sure would go into Stockalike or not.

I don't know about adding recesses for specific parts, that stops it being useful for anything except that part. I might make something like a flat frame that someone could build upon, but doesn't Roverdudes rover do that? I noticed a spike in people downloading old versions of the mod off of KerbalStuff since it came back up after downtime, please make sure your install is up-to-date (v11.2).

Possibly the only thing about updating a mod I disliked, and you've fixed it.

Image removed. A mysterious two-tone cylinder! Very early texturing. Oh there probably will be. At the very least seeing a look at the numbers will be interesting.

What filetype are you using to import the texture into Unity? I'm using 3 channel PNG with transparency, and it doesn't have the "Alpha is Transparency" option on the import options. I'm also still using Unity 4.0.1f2 so that may be why that option isn't there for me. You could also try using a non-transparent texture instead, the KSP/Particles/Additive shader makes the black areas transparent.

Someone else had this issue before, can you post a pic of your material set up for the particle itself?

No problem. It's a shame you can't make what you want because of a KSP bug, I know that feeling all too well.

Everything you've done should make it work, so I went and tried the same set up on an engine cluster myself (edited Cutter since that has 3 transforms) and it looks like PREFAB_PARTICLE doesn't actually work with multiple transforms from what I can tell. You could make your own particle FX if you like, the Hotrockets thread first post has a great tutorial.

Oh right you don't need to change that. Ignore the comment then! Make sure your 4 monoTransforms in Unity have the same name and are all placed correctly. EDIT: It's the running_closed bit that's the name, called in runningEffectName. The RAPIER has running_closed because that's "closed cycle" mode where it uses stored oxidiser.

Try setting it up with one copy of PREFAB_PARTICLE in the FX definition, and then call that in your ModuleEngineFX. You don't need one PREFAB_PARTICLE for each nozzle, it'll use the one definition that has the right name multiple times. You only need to use a monoTransform if the FX_gasJet_tiny comes out at the wrong angle.

Taking the TET as a makeshift rover out for a drive, powered by a couple of MMRTGs on the back. With SAS on for stability and trim set for a little forward motion this thing can sustain 3.0m/s indefinitely. On the subject of rovers, what are people looking for for rover bodies? What sort of shapes? Pure structural parts, probe cores specifically designed for use as rover bodies, or a mix of both? Something else? Try building around the SRB having all it's SolidFuel, rather than reducing what's in it to fit. You could stick on a little more mass to the payload for example, or change the stages below the SRB to be slightly smaller so the upper stage starts burning sooner. I've thought about hybrid SFO engines and I might make one if I can think up a way to make them have their own niche. When you disable throttle you kinda have to set the engine to not shutdown once started otherwise you get the taptaptap on-off-on-off workaround that dzikakulka mentioned. And when you set the engine not to shutdown, you have to disable throttle because you can just throttle the engine down when you don't want it going! Maybe a limited throttle might be the answer to that, say 50-100% throttle but disallowing shutdown completely. Not planning to do that with any rocket engines. There are others around but I might do something similar. I read over them but still haven't gotten around to poking at the maths with my engines. Thankyou for writing it up, was very interesting seeing how someone else balances parts, though my focus is on balancing the engines alongside each other for use in Sandbox, rather than providing a progression through tech nodes that you've set up with Near Future. I need to do a finetuning pass for v12 so I expect I'll be looking very closely at the five electric engines I've got.

Try four transforms all named monoTransform, then call that one name later.

In the FX definition under PREFAB_PARTICLE put the prefabName as fx_gasJet_tiny to get the RCS thruster FX. If the effect plays facing the wrong way, you'll need to add a transform with another name to your thrustTransforms in Unity in the place you want the FX to spawn, but rotated so it'll come out the right way. Then call the new transforms in transformName. I know fx_smokeTrail_light does this (it comes out of Y+ on the transform rather than Z+), not sure about any others.

I think I might make a habit of posting one WIP pic a day when I'm actively working on something, so here's todays: Image not available Still working on the gold foil, trying to get the same look as the foil on the LV909 rather than something more detailed. Each of these is only using a couple of 256x256 textures, and the different versions of the two TETs currently share a normal map. If things with the current textures don't work out I'll probably have to re-map them all onto a 1024x1024 that they'll all share. That may be true but I was going for a 1.25m engine, rather than a 0.625m. Maybe both. Pretty much this. Some people might enjoy the challenge of using a less controllable engine, some people might use it because it's different. In the end it would be kinda like the MP engines, just another alternative to using the same old LFO engines again. The MMRTG is my first part, and it's always been so well liked by those that used it I just couldn't let that particular part break any craft.

You gotta start keeping a second folder for random non-Tantares parts since you keep doing that!

They would be just an alternative to sticking on LFO/MP tanks and engines, but with a little more planning involved. Not the sort of thing you'd be using without an information plugin like KER to help. Another thing the balance would need to be very close to work, but doable. I think I got the Boostertrons about right for alternatives to using a Spinnaker and some tanks. I've not used it myself but I think NovaPunch might have some.

Thanks for all the suggestions, keep them coming. Obviously I'm not going to be making them all but those that pop up often, are repeatedly requested by different people, and those that match up what I was considering are going to go ahead and be made. I'll be taking my usual stance of balancing everything for use in Sandbox, with tech tree assignment coming after. The Spinnaker and Kingfisher were both made after an update where they buffed the already borderline OP 48-7S to where it is now. I wanted some balanced alternatives to use, and so I made them! When I moved the parts in the tech tree for v10 I could make a nice niche in terms of progression for the little engines, but that doesn't stop the 48-7S still being too good. I'm reluctant to include an MM config to fix a few OP things or tweak the a few tech tree placements because that just adds to complexity for installing, keeping things up-to-date with MM itself, and conflicts with other MM patches that change the same parts. Do people want upper stage SRBs? It's something I've considered doing for a while but held off on because I wasn't sure if people would use them.

I'm concerned the Mk1 parts shown off on the KSP Twitter appear to not follow the modelling standards for parts. That is, they look to be based on 18 sided cylinders rather than the 24 that every other stock part uses, and that every mod adheres to. I remember seeing this problem being pointed out after seeing the first small image of the Mk1 Cockpit but it was too small for me to tell, but these new images make it clear that the new parts do not have 24 sides. 18 sided cylinder on the left, compare the number of sides visible on the right-hand end of each part: A quick mock up demonstrating why this is an issue:

v11.2 released, fixed up some issues with the tiny MP engines, reduced the small radial decouplers force by roughly 50%, and increased the big MP aerospikes ISP to make it a little more competitive. Yep! So far there is square and round probe cores in both gold foil and stock(ish) grey in the same style as the HECS and OKTO, and I'm open to suggestions for more, as well as any probe-ish parts you might want.

Removed image. Work-in-progress shot in Blender. Gold foil needs some work still, and this particular picture is just the diffuse. I'll also be adding normal maps to these parts, but since they're all 256x256 the memory hit shouldn't be too bad. Worth it to add the detail the foil needs to look convincing I would say.

Well that needs to be sorted out, not a big issue though. I did also notice the radial version is the wrong size, so that's another minor thing to fix at some point. It's a simple matter of commenting out the "resourceFlowMode =" line in the configs, and if you do that you'll just end up seeing the engines taking MonoPropellant from outside of their stage when they've used that stage up, even through decouplers apparently. I recommend keeping the settings on the engines as they are and using a fuel flow plugin instead, or enabling surface attachment and adding fuel lines. To do that, change "attachRules = 0,1,0,0,1" to "attachRules = 0,1,0,1,1" in the radial Monopropellant tanks, preferably using ModuleManager since that won't change your install.

Actually playing with my parts rather than just testing them.

It's an unfortunate side effect of a stock setting in the Monopropellant resource, here's my answer from earlier in the thread about the same thing: You can also use a ModuleManager config to add surface attachment to the stock tanks (I'm sure there's one for this somewhere) or find of the plugins that fixes the fuel flow issue entirely.