hoojiwana

There are no mod packs for KSP because there isn't really a need for them, mod installation is incredibly easy and mods are very rarely incompatible.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/30064-Community-Rules-October-27th-2013

You need to have a separate thrustTransform placed on each engine nozzle. They can all be named identically.

Spaceport is terrible for showcasing your mods, terrible for finding new mods, is filled with terrible craft files, has a habit of corrupting uploads, has a habit of breaking connection on larger downloads, has dodgy legal terms, and is a buggy mess for uploading and updating.

That part is the new version of my oldest engine, and is the first part for a revamped Electric Engines pack. There's going to be an awful lot less parts than the existing version, and it will almost certainly not be compatible with craft that use the existing version. As for VASIMR, well Nertea has his fantastic looking version, as well as what is essentially what I wanted my Power Generation pack to be. If I wanted to make my own it would be easy to do with the new stock modal engine module, but anything like that will not be part of the upcoming update. Tweakables doesn't work like that unfortunately, it's not something I can add in a config. There's no "full release" of anything because I don't feel the overall quality is good enough. For Stockalike the only thing that isn't up to standard is the Radial Jet and I might just remove that from the download since it doesn't really have much of a point to it. The Cutter is borderline, but I was intending to do a full redo of that part anyway since the stats are lacklustre. After I'm done with the handful of Electric Engines parts, the Cutter is next on the list. No progress over the holidays, but I'll get on with things soon. Spaceport is really awful for showcasing mods, it's really disappointing that Squad gave up on the revamp for it. The first post of this thread is a much better place for seeing what my part packs contain what with the Imgur albums and such. Not really ideal since this thread is kinda hidden in the Addon Development subforum and doesn't get bumped with posts that often. I have plenty of ideas I would really love to implement in terms of command pods, so keep an eye out for that.

That's exactly what I was looking to show with that picture. I should make a test cube with a grid texture on it or something to show it more clearly. And I just double checked, the Unity settings for the texture are set to use "Texture" rather than "GUI".

I have to wonder how applicable much of this is now that 0.23 is out, especially the memory usage. This one of my older parts that I was using to compare TGA to PNG, and to show the oddness that PNGs can display. The warning label on this isn't the best example, but my parts generally lack hard lines so this was essentially the only thing I could use. Whatever causes this is much more apparent on B9 aerospace parts (before Bac9 switched to using TGA).

Nope. At a guess we will need new part tools to make the required .mu files.

Since everything is just simple parts there should be no compatibility issues at all.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm finding it pretty hard to trust the devs on anything after they've now gone completely back on themselves on two key game features, as well as showing that they cannot think of solutions to technical problems they declared impossible to be solved without seeing a modder do it first.

Glad to have helped, I hope you like the parts. I'm not happy with the Cutter as it stands right now, next time I work on Stockalike I'll be updating the art and the config Early stages of texturing! Hey kahlzun, good to see you! The next thing to include your sounds (if your permission still stands) will be coming after 0.23 is out, and that looks to include much easier ways to add sounds to parts if Mus stream was anything to go by. Are you also able to maybe make a few new ones possibly?

They mentioned multiplayer career mode as well, so I imagine you could read some flavour text as a group.

There are many people who do not enjoy the science system whatsoever because they do not find it fun, but it was the focus of a game update. Saying aerodynamics is tied to game difficulty is a bit of a perilous road because on one hand, something like FAR without certain other game balances can reduce the deltaV to orbit, but can make stabilising and building the rocket more challenging. Stock aerodynamics also is incredibly helpful when landing on Kerbin since everything is slowed to terminal velocity irregardless of incoming velocity from space. Stating ISRU has no relation to anything in real life is downright false. The argument from the devs up to this point was always that adding multiplayer in on top of everything rather than building the game up for multiplayer was a terrible idea. It seems they now disagree with themselves.

The parts at the very least were never released by Squad themselves so I don't think they can lay claim to the ownership of them, asking NovaSilisko if he still has them about would be a better choice.

Resources as a game system is significantly different from adding in multiplayer to a game built as singleplayer, that has elements that make multiplayer an extremely significant challenge. There is a very good reason the developers always said multiplayer was impossible to just add in an update before, and now suddenly they've changed their minds? As Feichinger said earlier, there's an awful lot of flip flopping on the games future from the developers.

No it isn't, just because a proportion of the playerbase cannot play the game does not change what the game is supposed to be. From the KSP website:

I don't think they would've done a good job of it anyway, based on the nonsensical implementation of the "science" system. I prefer that they focus on fixing the game up and making it more mod friendly than wasting their time trying to be better than a mod.

Looks like you didn't install them right, you're missing a lot of parts that use MODEL{} from Stockalike as well. Have you placed my mods in the Parts folder, because that is incorrect, they should all be in GameData, so you should end up with this:

Going by the recent "balance" that stock parts have I'm a little concerned.

Volumetric is a bit of a misnomer there surely?

Stockalike 0.9.4 ready to download from here, including the above MPR-1 engine. Also readded the specular that was removed from the RCS units back in 0.7.2, and made the edge highlights on the 0.625m tanks stand out a little less. I've set the attach rules on the MPR-1 to allow for exactly that.

Both of those should now be fixed, thanks for mentioning them. EDIT: Also knocked this out earlier, added the extra parts to the existing texture that the RCS blocks all share, and made them all specular again. Don't know when I'll release this, may or may not do it with a small update since I want to go over the 0.625m LFO tank texture and improve it a bit.

There's been a couple of minor fixes and alterations to Stockalike since the 0.9 release, as well as a couple of alternative models in a separate download. These alternatives are exactly that, and do not replace the existing versions of the parts they are based on. They do work standalone as well. The stock tree is terribly unfriendly for Stockalike. The Monopropellent engines are in control because of needing the monopropellent tanks as a prerequisite, and it's a similar story for the 0.625m parts, they kinda have to be alongside or after the stock 0.625m stack decoupler. For the users of Electric Engines, that entire part pack is in one node. I just really do not like the entire science system and tech tree they went with, so part node placement is the minimum amount of effort I can get away with. The Spinnaker with the TWR it has is a very capable engine, one of them can lift an awful lot of rocket above it in one stack, changing its values to compare to an "accidentally" overpowered engine just makes it overpowered in it's own right. For the curious, the Mainsail has a TWR (at Kerbin sea level) of 25.48, the Spinnaker has 24.46, and the 48-7S has 30.58(!) with 20 more ISP. I don't think removing gimbals from primarily probe-controlled rockets is a great idea either, as they have significantly less reaction wheel torque than manned pods. The reason there was no 1.25m Highpower engine in Stockalike 0.9 is because of the comparably higher thrust that the existing 1.25m engines have. I did a few unscientific tests with similar rockets of all scales as part of the engine balancing for 0.9, the Spinnaker et al. are fairly similar to their 2.5m counterparts, but the 1.25m engines seem to have too much thrust (and mass). Might do, but to be honest I don't really end up flying aircraft around so I don't get to see how useful a potential part might be, and there's already fairly useless parts in Stockalike (Radial Jet and Cutter). The Radial Jet should be exactly equivalent to a stock intake, jet engine and structural part, it's just smaller and less parts. I like that idea, could be a jury rigged linear RCS port, and adding it wouldn't use any extra textures.

Sounds like your animation name defined in Unity doesn't match the one you're calling in the config.

The new engines are balanced to each other, but not to the 48-7S. This is because the 48-7S has a combination of stats that make it pretty overpowered. The new engines are sort of a replacement for it, people can now use slightly better balanced options rather than being stuck with something ridiculous.