PolecatEZ

I call dibs on making the first jet pack...oooh the possibilities. Should have a working prototype after the kids go to bed.

Great, perhaps you can share how to do that with the spaces because I got it to work once, redid every space like that, and then it didn't work again at all. Hair-pulling. Now I can't tell if the model command is being ignored or the texture sub-command is being ignored.

Anyways, did everything nice and proper for the crewcabin, and here's a comparison in quality. The top lander can has the old 4mb texture and 1 or 4mb shadow map or whatever that second file is. The bottom cabin has his 4mb texture + 4mb shadow map shrunk to 512x512 with no alpha for 768kb now, with a 256kb shadow map. My settings are on the absolute highest levels for everything, people sporting lower resolutions or textures may not notice a difference. Is this quality difference ok for the average user, or should I stick just to shrinkilating ridiculous things like the 8mb throttle handle? ================ And in an unrelated EUREKA moment, I just figured out how to ensmallen the /spaces folder to almost nothing, without applying any texture modifications. I can probably squeeze that down to 20% original size before texture shrinking.

Good thing I saved the original swaps...now to figure out how to strip an alpha channel. I went with 384 because 256 was too fuzzy but 512 was too big. I can run back through and in my alpha stripping pass change them less. So far as I know, anything from Squad in the /gamedata folder is fair game to do whatever, its the other stuff they don't want you modifying or mucking with. People wholly rip off the config templates for things and redistribute all the time, why would modified textures be different? I'm not claiming the textures as my work, just the tedious process of converting them. Justice from the admins is generally swift and brutal if there is a violation. I also solved the installer problem. Seek and destroy batching is easy to construct now.

This is quick and dirty for a first post, and the release will get a better name, but here goes. I ran some scripting on the Squad Stock parts and internals and managed de-rezzed some bloated textures. My first pass I hit all the 4mb and 1mb textures, which knocked about 30% off the total load size. I have 2 problems: 1 - My machine is too beefy with dual raid SSD and big fat processor, 30% off just isn't that noticeable for me on a basic install with no other mods. 2 - Because the textures are .tga now, they don't overwrite the default textures, just add to them. I need a quick and dirty way to make a seek-and-destroy script (or upload the entire parts folder, even the parts without changes). If I can figure out how to get a printout of files in the "Cooked" folder, I could definitely batch it that way. It does make install a little messy though (add in files AND run batch...maybe too much for most users to grasp). I also need the texture resolution settings for 12mb, 16mb (2048x2048 I assume), 3mb, 1.5mb, and 768kb so I can make heading swap files for the remaining textures. As well, nearly ALL textures in the internals folder are duplicated, if we could make reference configs instead, the internals folder could be shrinkalated by about 90%+ (no joke). Here's the shrunken textures that I have so far, its a tedious process. If anyone wants to test or help out, feel free. Also, if anything looks particularly like kerdoodoo, let me know and I'll shrink it less or not at all. DOWNLOAD 0.1a texture pack MIT license (means do whatever you feel like, I'm cool unless you aren't).

My game started crashing randomly as well. There's issues with the new engine fairings in the KOSMOS pack also, where my framerate will drop like a rock when I try to use them in the VAB. I'll try putting in the manual fairings folder and see what happens for KW.

There will most likely be a line or two added to the config file for determining where the part should appear on the tech tree. Without setting this, you will most likely just always have that part available by default. Worst case scenario would be if they had a tech tree config file that referenced your part. The real nightmare will come once some kind of currency is implemented and cost becomes an issue. We already have modders that can't balance an engine to save their lives, I'd hate to see how badly twisted the logic becomes for making "cheaper parts."

Yes you can do this, but also delete the call for the MOD in the config for the part just to be safe. Also, change Module = (something) to "Module = part" at the top - second line in the config. Test this first before you destroy your save though, but it should work to make the part completely inert.

I just tried a "quick and dirty" method for this and didn't work. Ejection force is tied to a subpart of the model, and not globally for the model. I'll try a more involved method with arranging shrunken lateral decouplers in a ring to see if that works, but this takes a lot of time to get the spacing right. Its in the queue though.

Just copy the code from any regular rocket engine and change the resource names/ratios to what you want. How many different resources do you plan on burning in that RCS thruster? I have one in ReStock that I think runs on IntakeAir and electricity.

Sorry I didn't see this earlier, I think that was during my Rome II week...which unfortunately lasted all of 3 hours or so. In one version I had the fuel crossfeed turned off. I found that its actually a problem with how unity does things, and everyone with parts similar to this sets the crossfeed switch to off just to avoid it. The part looks nice, but really only good for attaching things below it. Its a PITA iterative process to model this way to start with, pressing the Q key once won't kill you, but it would save me about 20 minutes of reloading parts to figure out exactly which way to rotate it. My OCD is already bad enough, I had to draw the line somewhere. That being said, I have the same issue with my own VTOL block (still my favorite part no other mod pack has duplicated well), and will probably give both of these parts some treatment in a future release. This is another Unity side show. The game engine just doesn't seem to like really big objects. I probably did about 20 iterations of exact placement of the node before I read somewhere on the mod dev forum that it just wasn't possible to get it perfect. Use MOAR STRUTS! I did learn later that a base part should never be > 10 tons. If you want, try making sure the base mass for the tank is exactly 10 tons and let me know how it goes, just open up the config file and replace 17 or 34 with just 10. I'll use InfiniteDice's trick with creating dummy heavy resources to bump mass over 10 for balance reasons, but base mass for any part should never go above 10. There's an idea I could play with, though I have no idea if it would work. Stand-offs for both of them would be quite good. The Golden struts were more of a proof of concept that I just left in the pack. It seems every parts pack has their own version, so I actually erased mine in my own game. BTW, struts REALLY REALLY do not like to be re-scaled and do all kinds of crazy graphical things when you try. That's my bad, it has something to do with attachment distance settings which I didn't scale up perfectly...again, 20 minute iterative process unless I eyeball it well and nail it on the 3rd or 4th go. I'll take a another pass at it on the next release.

Any chance at a mod pack merger with ReStock? Nice mod you got there...I would love to assimilate it There was another guy that also did some work along these lines, I'll have to find his as well.

Here's your outliers...those three Bearcats are some orders of statistical magnitude off from everything else. "score" is my own arbitrary derivatives with weighted values for each aspect, feel free to ignore. TWR is straight-forward. MDTWR is mean deviation from TWR average, with the average of all non-nuke engines listed being 205. Normally it they'd just be deleted out, but then you aren't left with a lot of choices for the larger engine size range (especially 5m). Here are suggested fixes, which would still keep these engines pretty OP, but knock them down to sane levels while still retaining usefulness.

I see a lot of cool ideas in there, especially that lander with the external seating. Also see some new uses for B9 parts pack. Off to try some new stuff now.

Tiberion, Any chance you would let me do a re-balance pass on some of the parts, particularly the bearcat engines, to bring them in line with KSP values and throw it in with your next update? I'd love for this pack not to go to waste, but using the engines makes me feel dirty so it stays un-installed.

Its a pressing question, as I'm trying to figure out a way to Kerbalize my high school biology classes. I'm currently going over the new state standards with the university faculty to see which concepts we can work into the game. The main goal will be genetics concepts, and for that sex-linked traits and such would be an important part. I've discussed with chemistry teachers also on ways to Kerbalize their chemistry classes, as well as physics teachers on ways to better put basic physics concepts in the game so they're more transparent to the student. After we Kerbalize science...English and literature will be next! For this though, we don't need female Kerbals, as classically all roles in Shakespearean plays were played by men.

I run RAID-0 256mb SSD's for KSP and about 1.5 gigs worth of parts mods. My load time is around 1:30. I was running it from a RAMdisk also and noticed no difference when I stopped bothering. After that initial load though, it really doesn't make much difference what you're running off. The speed does come in handy when I'm doing iterative parts reloads, like .cfg combos, and it only takes a few seconds each time to reload every part. For regular gameplay, however, it should do a whole lot of not much.

I think jumping and exploding is kind of a new one. Does it ever actually make it to the water? The default Narwhale III should have the 3-beams under it to prevent something like this bug. The other known bug is spawning too high or too low under the water, which is addressed in the manual in the first post of the thread.

Looks like voodoo, smells like voodoo...works like a Catholic miracle so far. I did add mods one-by-one to isolate the issue, and Romfarer was the only one that killed my boats consistently, all others were just random. With that fix though, I ran 6 passes with Romfarer at 2500m and the ship held together just fine. Thank you thank you.

Is there any way to completely disable the "physics load" range, as this is what is breaking my aircraft carriers. If I remove romfarer.dll, my carriers don't break when coming within 17.5k range (the new default), but with romfarer.dll installed, they crack up at whichever range is set in the space center screen. Does anyone know a config setting to completely turn it off and just leave it the true default?

I never thought that KAS could possibly have been the connection, but I'll test it immediately. Maybe I can figure out how to duplicate the function with Lazors. I'll update and let you know. ---- Took out KAS and tested. Just as bad as ever unfortunately. The first physics load will twist the bottom of the hull. The second pass on the carrier with a physics load will see it torn apart and capsized. I'll wait for your next release, maybe that will help.

Any chance we could get a physics fix for the aircraft carriers. I'm quite obsessed with this mod, but this is the third time I've given up and uninstalled due to the carriers just randomly falling apart when they get loaded by the physics (either spawning close or flying far away and coming back). Specifically, the quarter hull sections like to twist themselves apart from each other regardless of the "torque strength" settings. This happens regardless of the physics timing settings, about 75% of the time. It also happens always with Romfarer.dll also installed (regardless of its settings). I want to love your mod, it lets me get away from the small airport radius, but this issue is a killer. Please think about this before you shelf it, that is all.

My 5 and 6 year old just had a lively debate on how a Kerbal gets inside a pod with no doors, then they went and actually built some rockets with their Legos.

While watching map view during a landing on a return course to Kerbin, my lander suddenly violently exploded and shook me out of map view. I checked the logs and it said something about a rockomax-64 collided with my ship...yeah, it can happen. I don't think it will happen again.