Dispatcher

I took your suggestion. Modifying an existing .cfg file is what I would have done if there were not a tutorial on said files. :-O It works like a charm now! Its clear from an actual vanilla part .cfg file that its a script; that's less clear in the tutorial. I need to adjust a few figures (the mass number is apparently dry mass, not total mass, for example) and now I can tweak the texture settings for looks. Another thing I did is generate the collision mesh only in Unity instead of in Blender (actually its the same mesh; just allows it to be collision as well as rendered). Its a simple mesh so no need for a separate collision mesh. I'll add a few things in gradually into the .cfg to modify behavior, but its off to a very good start now. Thanks again!

I followed your advice and matched the name field in the config file. Made no difference. Changed the file name to match the model file name also. No difference. Finally changed the cfg. file name to part.cfg just because it works for others. No difference. I've also tried with exported .dae file into Unity as well as the .blend file into Unity. No difference. I also followed your advice on the debug menu. Interestingly, while nothing shows up in the VAB parts area, the debug shows that my model and textures are in there. The config file does not show up. But since my problem is consistent, I am of the opinion that the game first looks for the .mu file, then the .cfg file. Since I think the .mu file is no good, it may then follow that .cfg file isn't seen due to that. I can't see anything wrong with my .cfg file. Here are images of mod icon files. The first image is of a mod by another author which loads and in fact appears in the game, in the VAB parts. The second is my mod. The .cfg file icons differ because in this instance I used OpenOffice instead of TextWrangler to save that file. They are both text editors. Note that the .mu file icons differ. I don't think that should be the case. Mine is still about 45 kb in size. The other mod .mu file is about 418 kb in size. That is strange also because my model is more complex than the other model. I've tried different diffuse as well as bm shaders too, which is why you see an icon for a normal file for bump map as well as the other texture MBM file. Perhaps my Part Tools didn't set up properly in KSP? At any rate, until a solution is found here, I'm thinking of doing the simplest model I can; a cube and a texture to test.

Yes, Unity likes .blend files; even better than .dae files. I was merely following the tutorial directions. I am using .mbm as the export setting since it is default in the Part Tools exporter. I agree that .mbm files are large. It took my 512 x 512 texture and pumped it up to 1.1 mb. I edited my post above because I dropped the info in the versions I am using. ^They are as current as can be.^ I'll put up a shot and the .cfg as time permits, by way of edit. The screenshot(s combined): The .cfg: // Kerbal Space Program - Part CFG file // its a fancy name // --- General Parameters --- name = model module = FuelTank author = Dispatcher // --- Asset Parameters --- // mesh = model.dae mesh = model.mu scale = 1 texture = model.mbm // texture = model.png specPower = 0.5 rimFalloff = 3 alphaCutoff = 0.5 // rescale factor = 1.25 // --- Node Definitions --- node_stack_bottom = 0, -0.75, 0, 0, -1, 0, 2 node_stack_top = 0, 0.75, 0, 0, 1.0, 0, 1 //node_attach = 0.75, 0.75, 0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0 // --- FX Definitions --- // ---Editor parameters --- cost = 1350 category = Propulsion subcategory = 0 title = a nice title manufacturer = a nice one of those too description = it will be decent, I think // attachment rules: stack, srfAttach, allowStack, allowSrfAttach, allowCollision attachRules = 1,1,1,1,1 // symmetry rules: 0=1x, 1=2x, 2=3x, 3=4x and so on... // --- Standard part parameters --- mass = 2.65 dragModelType = default maximum_drag = 0.5 minimum_drag = 0 angularDrag = 0.25 crashTolerance = 50 breakingForce = 1024 breakingTorque = 512 maxTemp = 3000 heatConductivity = 3.6 heatDissipation = 0.014 // --- Special Part Parameters --- OR Specific Part Parameters --- fuel = 215 oxidizer = 262 dryMass = 0.265 fullExplosionPotential = 10 emptyExplosionPotential = 0.9 Thanks again for any help!

Hi. I was using the relevant tutorials and information ('stuck' to the top of the thread list) to help me learn how to export models from Unity. I followed them every step of the way, and yet I seem to be experiencing a problem not covered in any guide. My export results. First, with the model file in the Hierarchy pane, I was unable to generate an MBM, but was able to generate a 4kb .mu file. Then I placed the model file (properly imported into Unity after properly exporting it from Blender as a .dae file) from within the hierarchy into the Part Tools GameObject, and that relationship allowed the MBM to be generated, but the now 45kb .mu file still doesn't seem to do anything. My .cfg file appears right and refers to the assets of the .mu and .mbm files but these do not load into the game and are not seen or referenced to within either the VAB or the SPH. I have a mod made by someone else properly located in my local game folders and it does load, so I doubt that the problem is due to placing my mod in the wrong folder. Edit: whoops! I had this in my text and then deleted it. I'm using the latest versions of: Mac OS, Blender, Unity, KSP, Part Tools; cfg file using diff apps: TextWrangler, TextEdit, OpenOffice. /Edit. Thanks in advance for any help on this! PS -- for comparison, another thread in another part of the forum (where I also posted to). I think the Mod & Texture Discussion sub forum is a better place for my question. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/34640-Problems-exporting-from-Unity

Kallons? Kiters? I was aware of the Wiki 'liter' designation, but I've always felt uncomfortable with it, since the tanks seem to be able to hold more in terms of volume, even if they were splash-baffled. Thanks for the clarification on this. Edit: from KSP Wiki, it looks like the liquid fuel density is 5000 kg/ m^3.

A better implementation might be obtained by starting in the SPH (or start in the VAB with the expectation of rotating parts as you will). Whatever,the result may be the same. With the RGU at the "front" of the rover, instead of on the "top" of the rover, I think more predictable driving results will be had. Of course, you were experimenting with the "on top" implementation, so my comment may not be useful to you. Happy KSP-ing!

An experimental ion driven rover. It masses at just over 3 tons and is compact. Its only intended for image (F1) or video capture. Its max speed on a level surface is about 3.8 m/s and its max range is about 16 km; on Kerbal. A better design would incorporate an appropriate battery set up. The large arrays broke off after hitting the ground due to the angle at the bottom of the dip just past the end of the runway. It wasn't strutted. Without enough electricity, its not very good for going up hill.

@ Captain Sierra and all: Edit: this first part is more for those new to KSP. Enter the VAB. Add a module. Add at least one of the launch support structures. With the module selected, look straight up. Raise the module until it can't go any higher. Deselect the module. Launch. Look at your altitude. Un-edit. Of course you need to subtract about 70 meters to account for the launch pad, so it would be true that the building is about 78 meters tall. So I misspoke. I was referring to the max module height and I didn't take the pad elevation into account.

The 148 m VAB height limit has never been a problem for me. All above is good advice. @ Starwaster: I see you are a Project Rho (/ Atomic Rockets) fan too! Edit: So its not really a VAB height limit of 148 m; its an elevation limit. The launch pad is at about 70 m elevation. I posted below in a reply also.

[EDIT] You might try Wikipedia for more information. [/EDIT] I second Raptor831's suggestion.

@ CmdrRimmer: that link at the start of the thread is to an image of ... you? I see no ship there.

I too have spent hours at his sites. Its actually nyrath that got me into KSP. I'd seen trailers and I thought that the green guys were indicative of a game that I wouldn't want, so I never looked into it further. I follow his Tweets sometimes and he tweeted that it was on sale at Steam and that the science is well done. So I bought it and found out that it was completely different from the silly game I had imagined it to be. Now I can't imagine the game without the Kerbals. :-O @ecat: yeah, the Orion mod is really good. It can kick you right out of the Kerbol system too.

Geschosskopf, I think you are close. I think they are made of green cheese.

Mine dropped after I hit 300 hours.

"Adding more wings naievely without adjusting the angle of attack will not affect a solution and in some circumstances may make the problem worse." -- ChevronTango. CT, I don't know why you quoted me and then made your remark about naively adding wings. Take a look at KerbMav's second photo and you will see that his forward wings are indeed pitched upward. I looked at that before I commented. I think he needs to either add more lifting surfaces (pitched up) or maybe he could move the forward wings ... forward.

Blender's interface is not the best example of "intuitive" (there is even a plug in for 'copy and paste', for example). But once you get used to it, it grows on you (or at least me). I've yet to find one 3D app that interfaces the way I'd prefer, but Blender does eventually get the job done (hmmm, workflow = time = money). Good luck!

I'll start. 3) I don't know about other 3D programs, but with Blender, the obvious controls for smooth vs. hard edged are the buttons ... Smooth and Flat. I've not yet encountered where these might be fine tuned (probably a box I've missed over on the right side in one of the object or object data menus; even one or more modifiers might deal with that). 4) No clue about the KSP/ Unity poly budget, but its not a bad idea to optimize. Most KSP parts aren't really all that complex (stock, anyway). I've also found out the hard way that if I join meshes in Blender and export as .dae, Unity doesn't consider the object to be a mesh, even though a .blend is fine for Unity (but of course not for KSP). But Unity has no problem with multiple unjoined meshes. Fewer meshes and the fewer polygons (then tri's) is generally best. I'm sure experts will join the thread and cover all your questions.

I don't know the mass of your mod parts, but it LOOKS massive. I'd agree about getting more lift somehow; probably more lift surface. Its good to see that you are using 909s as they are less massive, have good iSP and the thrust is OK.

The above is good advice. Also, make rovers and rocket cars in the SPH. Maybe planes. Of course make rockets in the VAB. Try different stages, tanks and engines. Try different throttle settings. Have fun and get a feel for what the parts can do. Get into orbit. Go up and then return from orbit. Then you will be ready to try other places; moons, planets.

I second Torminator's advice. Its rather easy to UV unwrap in Blender and if you don't like the smart unwrap results, you can select one or a few or a group of faces and generate parts of the map until you've got the islands the way you like. There are Blender tutorials available in these forums too (via links). Edit: you'd find the links via the forum search engine. Ooops.

Welcome and good luck here!

Thank you Milkshakefiend! Without yet correcting the file path, doing the config file (which looks straightforward) and actually going into KSP to test things out, I'm gonna proceed with cautious optimism and give this a qualified success. Your photo showed me what to do (by the way, the link to the large image wasn't working). As you can see, I got the app to generate a .mu file. As for the object in the scene, I was just having fun. If problems persist, I'm sure I'll be posting them somewhere at the forums. Take care and may your weekend be good.

The above posts have information which is helpful. I'll not add anything new but will suggest ways you can help yourself. First, as mentioned above, a screen shot will help us if you want our help. Captain Sierra tells you how to get the picture to us. OK, this will be new. If you are using a Mac and access the game via Steam, go to Library (to the right of the Store tab). In the list on the left side, right click on Kerbal Space Program. Click on Properties in the new menu. Then the Local Files tab in the pop up menu. Then the “Browse Local Files ...†button. Find the Screenshots folder. Your screenshot(s) will be in there. Just drag the photos from within the folder to a folder on your desktop or in the Finder. Then proceed with Captain Sierra's instructions. Back to the not so new. When you are in the VAB, look at the parts you are using for your rover. Also look at batteries and the nuclear generator. Read what they do, how much power they use or generate. Remember to look at their mass. You will need to total up what your parts use in electricity and find the parts which will generate that total (per second or per minute). For solar panels, do they move or not? Do you need to open them or not? As said above, these only work in enough sunlight. Recommendations to add a battery or a nuclear generator are good suggestions. When you are ready, post your picture and we can help you if you still need help.

There may be mods that may help. So far I've not used any. Check out the SpacePort and the forums here for those. Its involved. First, you need to decide what the mission is. If its just flying around in the air, experiment. If it is to get to orbit, determine what altitude you want to achieve (high and low points of the orbit) and what you want to be your payload. Then you get to figure out the total mass involved and the total delta Velocity. If you want to return to Kerbin, allow for a little more. If you are planning to go to a moon or another planet, you've got more variables, like their positions relative to where your's is in the different orbits. I'm sure someone else will chime in, but that will get you thinking about it until better replies are up.

I hope the IT people will restore the "reply with quote" ability for Safari users. Anyway, Bubba Wilkins, even with perfectly level gear, there is a way to get the nose up. Pitch the forward canards or wings up (shift A) or even all wings, so that they may get air pushing under them to initiate lift. I'm sure you knew that. :-) In practice I tripod my gear with the two rear gear "shorter" than the one forward gear, as well as pitching the wing surfaces up. I also do what some here advise against: angle my rear gear. Sometimes a take off can be a little scary but I prefer to place the rear plane mass load onto the gear instead of putting gear on wings. But that's the fun of KSP; we can do things differently and it sometimes works.