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.

Introduction Hi there, this is a straightforward but challenging, uhh, challenge! The goal of the challenge is to make a rover go as fast as possible while maintaining enough stability to make sure your Kerbals survive (the fatality rate for employees at KSC is high enough as it is, don't you think?). I have spent a couple of hours this evening to test how far I could push my rovers, and it is possible to go quite fast. Check post number 2 by the way for some of my own designs! Rules Although wings may be used, your craft is never allowed to lift from the ground! Parts are allowed to fall off (**** happens), but only one (1) stage is allowed. You are not allowed to decouple parts of your craft. Your rover must be able to travel at the minimum speed described in the Challenge Mode for at least 10 seconds. Your rover must be able to come to a complete halt in a safe manner as to allow the Kerbals to survive. The challenge must be attempted near the KSC grounds! Challenge Modes All wonderful mods the community creates can somewhat tip the favour in an unwanted direction in some challenges. Therefore I will make a note of who has used mods or not. No mods are restricted except for those that are obviously game-breaking (engines that don't require fuel for example). I have divided the challenges into different modes and tiers. The mode sets the general challenge while tiers are simply different levels of difficulty. The harder ones might yield rewards. Skunk Mode Description: Everything goes. No restrictions in parts count or number of engines used. Want to use 10000 RCS thrusters? Go ahead, may your Kerbal die in a blazing ball of glory and fame. Tier 1 Reach a minimum speed of at least 340 m/s, roughly equivalent of Mach 1. Tier 2 Reach a minimum speed of at least 255 m/s. Tier 3 Reach a minimum speed of at least 170 m/s. Austerity Mode Description: KSC has had its funding cut by congress. As a result, most of the available funds goes to Jeb's boosters. You are now restricted in how many parts you can use. Tier 1 Reach a minimum speed of at least 240 m/s while having no more than 20 parts, only one (1) engine allowed and no RCS. Tier 2 Reach a minimum speed of at least 160 m/s while having no more than 40 parts and only one (1) engine for propulsion. Tier 3 Reach a minimum speed of at least 160 m/s m/s while having no more than 40 parts. Funky Mode Description: The factory making Funky Chunky Banana-Rama Ice Cream has exploded. Since all Kerbals, except you, are exceptionally addicted to it they are now experiencing extremely dangerous withdrawal symptoms. You are the only Kerbal on KSC grounds able to race to the next town over, get some fresh bananas and then synthesize an antidote. Time is essential, the whole future of the Kerbal Space Program depends on you! Tier 1 Accelerate from 0 m/s to 240 m/s in under 6 seconds, maintain a minimum of 240 m/s for 30 seconds and then decelerate to 0 m/s in under 6 seconds. Tier 2 Accelerate from 0 m/s to 160 m/s in under 8 seconds, maintain a minimum of 160 m/s for 30 seconds and then decelerate to 0 m/s in under 8 seconds. Tier 3 Accelerate from 0 m/s to 120 m/s in under 10 seconds, maintain a minimum of 120 m/s for 30 seconds and then decelerate to 0 m/s in under 10 seconds. Insane Mode Description: Various extremely difficult challenges. The Fly-by Without using any parts with lift, jump over the rocket launch pad by using one of the sloped edges as a ramp. You must at some time during your "flight" be over the central elevated part of the launch pad, and travel the long way over it. Your rover is allowed to crash after it has cleared the other edge, just make sure your Kerbal survives somehow. Perhaps pillows might help? Landing the rover at the other end without it breaking up or crashing grants an additional 2000 points. No more than 10% of the parts may fall off and it has to be somewhat operational afterwards as well. Additional Boosters Required Reach a minimum speed of 1000 m/s. You may do it anywhere on Kerbin, and additional stages and decoupling is allowed. Leading Kerbal scientists suggests taking your Eeloo launch vehicle, rotating it to a horizontal orientation and then strapping some wheels and a command chair to it. Just make sure you point the death-machine away from any vital buildings before detonating, errr, I mean launching. The Jack of All Trades A deranged scientist at KSC has placed your rover in a vertical orientation on the rocket launch pad. Can you reach an altitude of at least 8000 m? You must use a rover that has been previously submitted and completed at least one (1) of any tier in any mode. You are not allowed to make any alterations except placing it in the VAB in the correct position and attaching TT18-A Launch Stability Enhancers. The Minimalist Make a rover using 10 parts or less and weighing 10 tonnes or less go faster than 200 m/s. Scoring Each mode will have a top list of the best crafts. Some people will beat the Tier 1 challenges, and these will obviously be placed higher than those completing Tier 2 or 3 challenges. Scoring amongst contributions in the same tier will be judged on an attribute relevant to the challenge mode. Detailed list below. General Scoring Tier 1 entries start with 1000 points. Tier 2 entries start with 500 points. Tier 3 entries start with 100 points. Skunk Mode If using less than 60 parts you receive the difference times 10 in points. Every m/s above the minimum speed (during the entire time required) yields an additional 6 points. Austerity Mode If using less than 40 parts you receive the difference times 20 in points. Every m/s above the minimum speed (during the entire time required) yields an additional 8 points. Funky Mode If using less than 40 parts you receive the difference times 15 in points. Every m/s above the minimum speed (during the entire time required) yields an additional 10 points. Insane Mode Completing an insane challenge will grant you 3000 points. If you argue for more points I might grant you them if the argument is well thought out and eloquently presented. Rewards Completing one of the Tier 1 challenges or one of the insane challenges yields a custom flag/badge. I don't know what you would want to use it for? Planting the flag somewhere or using the badge in your signature. Quality not assured. Suggestions and notes The stock wheels are not good enough to complete some of these challenges. I suggest using the Small Gear Bay if you are just using stock wheels (like I did) since they are far more suited for high speeds. Just be prepared to use a lot of them, and ohh, you can't steer with them. It might also be a good idea to use some of the jet engines since they require less fuel and weigh less. Note 1 Some challenges has been modified to reflect the ease by which some of them were completed. I really want the Insane Challenges to be, well, insane. And the Tier 1 challenges to be difficult. I hope you don't mind!

Never thought of that until now, even though perhaps I should have (I can drive a car IRL but not build rockets, can builds rockets in KSP but not drive a car ). Thanks!

Really like the design. Very future-esque (which I like a lot in this case)! From the video it looks like it handles really well, will give it a try when I am on my desktop computer. Good job

Very nice, I like the minimalistic design. And I'm impressed by how many tonnes it can bring into orbit! I modified the Ring SSTO from my previous post to lower the part count by 65 to about 110. It did require an additional stage in the middle though (the place where the ring can connect to other crafts via the Senior Docking Port. But I managed to get it into space at least with none other than Jebediah and Bill Kerman and about 6000 units of LF remaining!

Haha that might be it then, gonna test it when I come home but it most likely seems to be the culprit. Why would you ever want to close the air intakes and turn on the engines at the same time though? Misleading Action Group in my opinion

I'm obviously missing something critical, but I can't get the example crafts to fly. I start by toggling the engines and air intakes. The total amount of air reads 0.8/0.8 under the resources tab before I start throttling up the engines. I then throttle them up the least amount I can and the air requirement is rapidly increasing, resulting in a flameout after a couple of meters. What am I doing wrong?

Ahh so it's the little antenna in a folded out state. Like you said, I have only used the larger communications device (the satellite dish that folds out) so haven't checked the small one. I'm still kinda confused why people have so many of them on their tiny rovers, thought they were some kind of thing that helped balance the rovers at first.

What are those red and white striped antennas? Been wondering that for ages :S Here's my new rover for Kerbal transportation. I have mainly focused on making it handle really well, which I think it does. And I have yet to manage to flip it over when I've tested it on the KSC grounds. Not even driving it over obstacles while making sharp turns at the rocket launch pad has managed to flip it! Though I have busted a few wheels. I will perhaps add more seats after I've tested it on Mun and Minmus.

Decided to make a new SSTO vessel today incorporating Wayland Corps. new Hyper Ring. I really liked how it turned out and how stable it is. It ended up being about 180 parts, sort of a lot but I didn't want to remove certain functions like docking port guidance lights (red omni-lights) and Quantum Struts. This also resulted in less than good framerates since I'm now playing on my Macbook Air. Well here it is in all of its glory. Also, first forum post! EDIT: Well that didn't go as planned, the album should properly display now. Thanks w4arlord117!