ericwdhs

Seconded on putting this on CKAN. Great work though!

Done. Haven't done much on GitHub. Guess I should rectify that if I want to get good at programming.

Not sure if this is the best place for a feature/plug-in request, but could we get a column in the GUI dedicated to custom, filterable tags to mods (both installed and not)? I'd like to be able to label mods with tags like "Favorite," "Watch: Needs Update," "Watch: Concept Has Potential," "First to Delete at RAM Limit," "Rejected: Not Stock-like," "Rejected: Alternative Used," and so on. CKAN has already become indispensable for me, but I keep going to other programs to do mod evaluating and sorting, and I end up looking over a lot of mods more than once. This one feature would allow me to do everything I need to do within CKAN. Whatever the result, thanks for this great program!

Just adding another vote to continuing this mod. The new stock fairings have some pretty cool functionality, but I still think PF is much better all around and much more enjoyable to look at.

Exactly what I needed to know. I'll definitely look into making a custom file. Thanks, guys.

Quick question I haven't seen addressed: I delete mod parts I don't use. Very few of the big mods I have are as downloaded. Will that cause any problems with CKAN? In other words, does CKAN perform any sort of automatic file verification/correction on already installed mods, or is it just limited to downloading mods you specifically tell it to update in each session? I haven't tried it yet, and I'm not entirely sure how it works in that respect.

Thanks! You should know that this is the first mod I'm adding into 0.90.

There's a lot of outdated information in those links, and I've had a heck of a time trying to pinpoint where particular methods were wrong. I only recently found Nifty255's videos for beginning modders, and he does a very good job of covering the modding process. A few alterations based on his video solved all the issues I was running into. I apologize if these are already linked here somewhere, but I highly recommend that all prospective modders start with these videos: - This covers the very basics. If you've looked into KSP modding at all, this may not teach you anything. - If you're making regular parts, this is probably all you need. It covers proper model and texture setup in Blender, setup and exporting through Unity, and even goes into setting up animations. and - These two cover things on the programming side: modules, plugins, .dll's, etc. I haven't gone through them, but they look thorough and easy enough to follow.

Great name! It's always nice to read these. I'm looking forward to .24.

VTOLs would follow the same rules. It just wouldn't be as elegant. If what you actually set to build is tweaked to vertical thrust, assume it's better off launching from the launchpad. If it's tweaked to horizontal thrust, assume it's better off on the runway. Make that clear to the user and you should have no problems. Even if the user does split points half SPH, half VAB, they should get what they want eventually. It'll just take longer overall, and that's perfectly fine since developing VTOL craft takes more time and effort in the real world anyway. That all said, I only replied because magico said he's "not a big fan of people building rockets in the VAB or planes in the SPH" (I assume VAB and SPH are supposed to be switched.) I agree with him there, but I think the proposed solution of unifying the queue doesn't actually do anything to solve that. It would only remove the distinction between SPH and VAB, and that's a step backward. Then again, I haven't gotten more than few minutes into testing this mod (just saw it today), so I'm may have missed the obvious or woefully misinterpreted some stuff about how the mod works. I'm also assuming there's an easy way to read a craft's thrust direction, the one given by the Center of Thrust icon in the editor. I really don't know how feasible my "solution" to this one concern is.

Instead of unifying the queue or penalizing use of both buildings, could you have incentives/penalties tied to the actual type of craft? It would make sense considering the buildings are supposed to be specialized. I'm not familiar with KSP's internals, but it seems like it should be as easy as the coding equivalent of: "If the ship launches with thrust down, it's a rocket. It will take twice as long to build in the SPH. If the ship launches with thrust horizontal, it's a plane. It will take twice as long to build in the VAB." Personally, I'd prefer a penalty more on the order of 5 or 10 times as long, but twice is good for easing up gameplay.

So you've used the freedom of planetary EVA with some models on top to fake freedom in IVA? Genius. How far do you think you can take this? If it's possible, could you look into setting up standards for hatches between parts and connecting multiple interior models? In other words, if two parts connect on one node and both of those parts have the same "hatch type" at the node, the hatch doors are removed from both interiors and you can travel between them. It would basically be the full 3D version of the Connected Living Space API. It doesn't seem like it would be that hard, but I have no idea what you have set up. If you managed to do this though, that would make this mod the king of all mods.

I've gone through all the parts and here's all my thoughts (with any issues found): Cargo BaysPros: Everything! Except... Cons: Surface attachment goes through the flat inside floor/back wall (can be worked around with other parts). Tweak reads "Disable Srf Attach" and "Enable Sef Attach" (minor non-game-affecting nitpick). Will I Use? Probably yes. These parts look and work great enough for me to keep them around, but I'll need an excuse to use them. I've only used cargo bays on reusable craft, and I only make spaceplanes reusable, and B9 has spaceplane cargo bays in all the sizes I use. For all other craft, I hide everything in fairings, though this alternative could reduce debris. I could maybe see myself using them as parts of space stations or bases to store contraptions I don't want outside all the time. Perhaps there are other uses I haven't thought of yet. Crocodile InterstagesPros: They look great and have very cool functionality. Cons: The inside bottom texture of the larger of the two interstages seems excessively stretched as you can tell by the "screws" (minor non-game-affecting nitpick). Will I Use? Yes. I can think some builds where I could use this at the very least as a more visually impressive alternative to regular fairings, and sharing internal space with the cargo bays and storage shrouds makes it all the more useful. Generic ShroudsPros: Works well and matches stock style. Editor visibility is a nice touch. Cons: The 3.75 meter shrouds don't line up with other parts radius-wise. The outside nodes on both 1.25 meter shrouds need to be pushed in a bit as there is a noticeable gap between them and joined parts. Will I Use? Probably not. I use Procedural Fairings for all interstage fairings, and its ability to curve around payloads, enclose payloads of any length, and join ends of many different sizes together is just indispensable to me. That said, I may use this in barer builds or attempts to recreate historical craft. End CapsPros: Everything here is great. Both sides of the cap look good, and surface attachment lines up. Cons: Nothing! Will I Use? Probably yes. It depends on whether I use the cargo bays. Radial Engine MountPros: Looks great and very useful. Offset is perfect for 4 placed around 2.5 meter parts, and 7 (via Editor Extensions) fit very well around 3.75 meter parts. Cons: None! Will I Use? Yes. This is a very basic piece that I have been sorely missing. I'll definitely use it on many of my big rockets and it works well for air intakes. Storage ShroudsPros: They match the cargo bays and crocodile interstages perfectly. Surface attachment works well on the inside. Cons: None, but is there supposed to be a long version of the 1.25 meter one? Will I Use? Probably yes. It depends mostly on what I use the crocodile interstages for. Inflatable HeatshieldsPros: Great look and functionality. Cons: Four Auto Deploy tweaks. Buoyancy should probably be higher. Will I Use? Yes. These definitely beat Deadly Reentry's heatshields for me. UBS and KM InflatablesPros: Nice animations, good textures, and very useful. Cons: Two Auto Deploy tweaks on the KM Inflatables. Buoyancy should probably be higher. Will I Use? Yes. All in all, this is a very nice set of parts.

I haven't tested this yet, but I can already tell the floats will be must-haves for me. The rest of the parts look great but may or may not make it into my install because they duplicate functionality I already have. I'll edit or post again once I've tested them.