Layer23

Well 1.0 was just released so it will be a while before you see a significant price drop. Guess you should have bought it earlier if you think the price is too high.

I combined both of your suggestions and it works now! Thank you so very much, have spent 4 hours bashing my head in. Anyways, I split up my exports into two as AlphaAsh suggested. Then I used your export settings nli2work. So I exported one .obj for the collision mesh and one for the detailed mesh (both had materials and texture "none" applied). Then I imported them into Unity's asset folder and used the detailed mesh as child in the gameobject hierarchy. Under Mesh Collider I pressed the circle to the right of Mesh (at the bottom) and selected the collision mesh .obj. That worked liked a charm, and tried it out in game now and normal maps and everything was applied. Then I tried one export with the collision mesh as a child in the hierarchy in Blender with it invisible. Then one time with it at the same level in the hierarchy in Blender and invisible. Neither of the attempts worked, the two meshes were still fused when imported into Unity. Don't know what's wrong with that. Would love for that method to work since it's slightly less work but oh well. Just happy it works now! Thanks once again!

Well Blender 2.6 didn't work and I don't want to spend too much time on that version since it lacks some things available in 2.71 I deem absolutely necessary. So the problem is that the collision mesh in blender merges with the detailed "normal" mesh when importing into Unity instead of remaining split into two meshes. So I cannot untick Mesh Renderer so that the collision mesh is invisible in game.

Tried it without a material now and had it hidden. It still merges/fuses with the detailed mesh in Unity when importing the .obj. Will try to reinstall Blender 2.6 and see if it works.

Okay I've reinstalled Blender and am now skipping adding the .mtl file. But now I only get one material imported although I have material and texture (with "none" selected in Blender on both) on the collision mesh and the detailed mesh. And the collision mesh and detailed mesh are fused together when imported into Unity. The area for Mesh Collider and Mesh Renderer are greyed out. It still also says my mesh doesn't have any normals, what gives? Of course it has normals, have tried flipping the faces in Blender as well as recalculating them. - - - Updated - - - Yeah the same thing happens for me. Glad I'm not the only one with that issue at least.

Hi there, all of a sudden I can't import my blender files properly into Unity. Was a while I did a part and I've got Unity version 4.5.2f1 now. Anyways, here's what I do. Create Blender file of model, a detailed mesh with material, image and UV mapped with an applied texture and a normal map for importing into Unity. A less detailed mesh with just 40 or so faces to be used as the collision mesh. Apply material to the collision mesh then hide it by clicking the "eye" icon next to it. The meshes are next to each other in the hierarchy. Perhaps the collision mesh should be under the detailed one? Anyways, export to .obj. Load up unity after having placed texture, texture_NRM, .obj and .mtl file in correct asset folder. Create new scene, new empty Gameobject and add KSP Parttools. Place default mesh under the Parttools in the hierarchy. This is where I'm encountering problems. First of all it say's my mesh doesn't have any normals, so it tries to recalculate normals without doing it. I manually changed the import option to recalculate normals. Another problem is that I get three materials although I only have two applied in blender, one for the detailed mesh and one for the collision mesh. The third material is called "no name" and seems to affect the collision mesh but I am not sure. After fiddling about I exported it to .mu, wrote a .cfg and loaded the game. The part loaded, but it wasn't the detailed and textured mesh that did but the collision mesh with just a plane white texture (placeholder I guess). So, wtf is going on with Unity? Can't for the life of me figure out what I'm doing wrong. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

I really dislike the contract system to be honest. Instead of having meaningful goals it simply provides arbitrary part tests. It forces one to build contrived rockets that has as many "unnecessary" parts as possible for part testing. I like to play the career mode as realistically as possible, for example no asparagus staging until the very late game (when that sort of technology is available in my opinion). I don't see any reason at all why I should have to test a SRB that is splashed down or one at 70km altitude. Why not have meaningful and realistic small missions? Deploying satellites of various designs at various orbits around Kerbin should be a good way to make money for a private space corporation. Ferrying say 8 rich tourists to one of the two moons and back should also be a great way to make money. Putting a scientific space station that generates science slowly would also be a great mission (compared to ISS where they carry out 0G experiments). I would like to do more stuff like that and not testing weird parts in weird situations that doesn't serve a "real" purpose. The part I enjoy is the 64-bit client, that's about it.

Personally I don't like the color of the stackable containers. Brown doesn't really fit with the stock parts and is overall a pretty bad choice because, well, brown is kind of ugly. The small radial parts are really neat though!

Okey great knowing that it can be done in Blender. Is it common for KSP mods to use normal maps (and is it appreciated) or is bump maps the way to go? Approximating mesh shapes using compound colliders isn't as difficult as approximating it with high simplicity (using primitives) without it becoming apparent when radial parts such as RCS ports are attached to the surface. For collision purposes it doesn't have to be super exact, I get that. It's just that I want people to be able to attach stuff without it looking wrong/weird. Thanks!

Thank you very much for the answer. Didn't know Unity could convert bump maps to normal maps, and is that really as detailed as baking your own in say Blender? Is it possible to import a normal map generated in Blender into Unity? I don't see why not but you never know. Regarding collision meshes, that means they actually have to be pretty exact. Making concave models using compound colliders seems very difficult now if you want to retain a modular building approach Thanks for your help once again!

Hi, I was wondering whether or not it is possible to use normal maps for KSP. Just to clarify since the terms are sometimes used interchangeably; what I mean by normal maps are actual normal maps, not bump maps. Bump maps can "easily" be painted using the same mesh whereas normal maps needs to be generated from a higher poly mesh and then baked/mapped onto the lower poly mesh for use in-game. A bump map stores intensity (by using alpha channels) and a normal map stores a direction making them more accurate and allows for better detail than a regular bump map. So, in short, should I be bothered to make normal maps for KSP or should I just use bump maps? Oh just remembered another question I had, perhaps it's stupid but would be useful to know. Does a part (say a radial part) connect to the normal mesh or the collision mesh in KSP? Please note I am away from home and have a sketchy internet connection but I will try to respond (if anyone else does) as soon as possible, thank you!

I don't see why not, if you think they are reasonably balanced I won't argue that point with you.

The opening post has been revised with altered challenges and scoring. I would appreciate any feedback and suggestions you might have. I will wait to create the scoreboard until tomorrow morning in order to allow you guys to have some time to vent your opinions. Thanks for checking in and keep up the good work!

General Note Due to my underestimate of you guys incredible ingenuity I have decided to modify some of the easier challenges. Specifically the part count requirements for the Austerity Mode Challenges and the Insane Challenges The Minimalist (part count) and The Fly By (long way required). I will revise the scoring for the current entries, I hope you don't mind. However, I will note who completed the Insane Challenges in a "Legacy Mode" section under the scoring segment. And let me just preface this by saying that the entries so far are quite amazing! Wow, I never thought such a small rover could travel so fast. Haha it really looks like a death trap, but it handled surprisingly well. Good job! I will edit the rules segment to note that the speed attempt has to take place close to the KSC area. Oh my god, that was pretty awesome when you activated the rear rocket. Super fast acceleration, i loved it! I will definitely try to incorporate this into one of my new designs. Great simple design, and you managed to complete the Funky Mode Tier 1 challenge, impressive! But I would love to see you attempt it near the KSC grounds (since it's a little bumpier). I hope it's not too much hassle, and I apologize for being unclear about where the challenges should be attempted :/ Great design, awesome video, awesome KIA glitch. But like I said to Darren9, i would love for you to reattempt it near the KSC grounds! Sorry once again for being unclear in the opening post about this. I will add an insane challenge for the ice caps! I hope you can beat it with a revised design (tip: add more engines!!!) Great job guys, I love what I've seen so far. And let me just say that you all surprised me by your minimalistic and stable designs. Keep up the good work!

Scoreboard Example Screenshots Here are some random screenshots for various designs I tried. I didn't take screenshots of the first vehicles, whereof one was very good.