[1.8.x] Kerbal Foundries -- Continued - Tracks, Wheels, and Gear

[Shadowmage]

Just now, Apaseall said:

(Filename: C:/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/generated/common/runtime/DebugBindings.gen.cpp Line: 51)

WheelCollider requires an attached Rigidbody to function.

That is an issue with KSP -- nothing I can do about it.  Last I checked the stock parts post the same error in the logs.

1 minute ago, Apaseall said:

(Filename:  Line: 241)

Texture 'KerbalFoundries/Assets/RepulsorSurfaceDiffuse' not found!

That is an error with the .mu model files that I am unable to correct, as I do not have the original Unity Project and/or model files in order to be able to recompile them (I am not the original author of Kerbal Foundries).

 

Neither 'error' has any impact on gameplay.

 

[Apaseall]

6 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

That is an issue with KSP -- nothing I can do about it.  Last I checked the stock parts post the same error in the logs.

That is an error with the .mu model files that I am unable to correct, as I do not have the original Unity Project and/or model files in order to be able to recompile them (I am not the original author of Kerbal Foundries).

 

Neither 'error' has any impact on gameplay.

 

Ah fair enough about the wheel collider. Pity about the .mu files. It is though a sign that lots of people really love KSP that you are not alone in being in a caretaker/new owner situation where the original or core files are no longer available. Many thanks for replying and fingers crossed that I have better luck with the other folks I have contacted. I know it seems a bit odd of me to be asking this sort of thing from folks. It is as we know not a game changing or even noticeable this, but I am rather bored with seeing this stuff as I wade through stuff. Oh and maybe a bit overly concerned with being tidy. But hey, nothing wrong with being none messy eh?

[InfiniteShock]

Small question. If I recall correctly, Adjustable Landing Gear used to have a second texture with black shielding instead of the white. I don't see that in this version of it. Are there any plans to implement that? 

Side note: Getting back into KSP after two years, it's nice to see people still working on mods and maintaining older ones. 

Edited September 26, 2018 by InfiniteShock
Nvm, did a better search of the topic :)

[Shadowmage]

ADVANCED WARNING

The KSP 1.5+ releases of Kerbal Foundries will not be backwards compatible with current versions.  Part names will be changing, part scales will be 'fixed', quite a few balance changes will be put in place, and some parts may be removed or re-worked/re-purposed.  Save games will not be compatible across versions; craft files will need to be reworked for the new parts.

So ^^^ is the 'bad' news.  The good news is -- as KerbalFoundries is just a collection of models/configs/textures, you will most likely be able to continue using the KSP1.4 versions as long as you update KSPWheel manually.  I don't think KSPWheel will be seeing any sort of breaking changes with the update, so the 'old' 1.4 configs should continue to work fine with an updated plugin.  You won't be able to use both though; as the overall mod structure will not be changing, there would be many duplicate configs if you were to merge the old and new installs.

 

Additional good news is that I intend on making full PBR textures for all of the parts in Kerbal Foundries, using TexturesUnlimited for shaders and utilities.  I have not yet decided if it will be 'recolorable' (aka SSTU parts) or standard texture(s).  Regardless, the possibility will exist at that point for multiple texture sets/options for the parts -- so things like the black textures for the landing gear may return.  The entire thing will likely be packaged as an optional download that would function as another mod; it would patch the existing parts to use the new textures that it included.

 

 

On 9/19/2018 at 12:53 PM, Apaseall said:

Ah fair enough about the wheel collider. Pity about the .mu files.

I managed to locate some (most? all?) of the original authors' project files that he had passed on to me at some point (including what appear to be quite a few dev projects / unfinished / prototype / unreleased parts), and am currently in the process of auditing these files to see what all I can use.  As long as the .fbx models are present I should be able to set the parts up for re-export to fix some of the issues.

Either way I intend on taking some time in the next few weeks to do some cleanup on the model and assets end of things.  Would be good to have these parts in a state where I might work on them if/when needed.

 

 

[Apaseall]

36 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

ADVANCED WARNING

The KSP 1.5+ releases of Kerbal Foundries will not be backwards compatible with current versions.  Part names will be changing, part scales will be 'fixed', quite a few balance changes will be put in place, and some parts may be removed or re-worked/re-purposed.  Save games will not be compatible across versions; craft files will need to be reworked for the new parts.

Ok warning heard. Now about old craft files. Will it be possible to edit old part names with new part names and thus breath life back into the old craft files?

[JH4C]

51 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

ADVANCED WARNING

<snip>

Bless you for this post. I look forward to seeing what the new version brings, but for now I'll start work on ferreting out the old parts and working up some placeholders...

[Shadowmage]

27 minutes ago, Apaseall said:

Ok warning heard. Now about old craft files. Will it be possible to edit old part names with new part names and thus breath life back into the old craft files?

As long as there are no actual model changes (scale/etc) to that part, then more than likely yes.  It might not work 100% in places where there are balances changes either, but it should at least get the craft/vessels to load in those cases.

[Apaseall]

5 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

As long as there are no actual model changes (scale/etc) to that part, then more than likely yes.  It might not work 100% in places where there are balances changes either, but it should at least get the craft/vessels to load in those cases.

I would be ever so happy if when you release the new/updated version, you also posted a little something regarding the parts that have had their names changed. i.e. old part is now new part, you can safely rename these, or old part is now new part but things have changed and you will want to check in the editor that you are using the new part usefully. etc. Thought I would get my Wish in early

[0111narwhalz]

2 hours ago, Apaseall said:

I would be ever so happy if when you release the new/updated version, you also posted a little something regarding the parts that have had their names changed. i.e. old part is now new part, you can safely rename these, or old part is now new part but things have changed and you will want to check in the editor that you are using the new part usefully. etc. Thought I would get my Wish in early

If he doesn't, you can always resort to looking at the deltas in the Github repo.

[Apaseall]

11 hours ago, 0111narwhalz said:

If he doesn't, you can always resort to looking at the deltas in the Github repo.

Thanks for that. It is not something I am familiar with so that would be a learning curve thing. Fingers crossed that it is made easy for me.

[Apaseall]

Hi, here is another wish, sort of. I normally scale the size of which every wheel part I am using. Wheels and tracks. I am not sure but I think the collision box does not scale nicely. I see this in action as my kerbal suddenly flies into the air at great speed. Forgive me if my conclusion about the collision box is incorrect. Steps to reproduce would be to stand very close to said part and then retrieve a large part from the inventory of another part. i.e. a small rover with some WBI inflatable parts stored onboard. Step close, pick up the part, see kerbal fly. The wish? well not to have flying kerbals. Ta.

[Shadowmage]

3 minutes ago, Apaseall said:

Step close, pick up the part, see kerbal fly. The wish? well not to have flying kerbals. Ta.

You cannot pick up parts in stock -- so you will need to take this up with whatever mod is adding that function (KIS/KAS?).

KIS/KAS will NEVER play nicely with parts that support scaling with their current code.  End of story.  Tried bringing it up with the dev multiple times -- he had no desire to fix the problem last I checked.  And it is not something that I can fix.

(the problem is that KIS/KAS use data from the prefab part for mesh analyzing -- which will never work with dynamic or runtime-rescaled parts, as the mesh will not match the prefab; it fails spectacularly with SSTU's 'modular' parts as well)

[Apaseall]

2 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

You cannot pick up parts in stock -- so you will need to take this up with whatever mod is adding that function (KIS/KAS?).

KIS/KAS will NEVER play nicely with parts that support scaling with their current code.  End of story.  Tried bringing it up with the dev multiple times -- he had no desire to fix the problem last I checked.  And it is not something that I can fix.

(the problem is that KIS/KAS use data from the prefab part for mesh analyzing -- which will never work with dynamic or runtime-rescaled parts, as the mesh will not match the prefab; it fails spectacularly with SSTU's 'modular' parts as well)

I thank you for the full and very clear reply. As I was writing the OP I did wonder if I might have been making a false conclusion. I see that I was wrong, in that there may be an interaction but it is not from this mod but as you say the other mod. WildBlueIndustries I think uses the KIS mod. My apologies if I raised a sore point.

[Shadowmage]

Hmmm.... very early render of testing for an update to PBR texturing.  I think it keeps the original spirit of the part quite nicely so far (it should, considering I'm re-using the old normal maps).  Need to do a better set of normals for the track itself, but the wheels look good.  Mostly just playing with things at this point and seeing how well-received such a texture update might be.

(Yes, I managed to get a workable .blend model setup for the Mole track from the assets I located; complete with intact vertex weights for the rigging...)

[TiktaalikDreaming]

Very nice.

[Apaseall]

Nice image. One thing I have noticed about my use of a track like the above, some of the track seems to tend to want to sink into the ground a bit. This leaves the bottom part bare of the track, it is merely a visual observation. I have no idea if this can be addressed at all. But since you are working on the graphical side of things I thought it might be worth mentioning.

[Shadowmage]

3 hours ago, Apaseall said:

One thing I have noticed about my use of a track like the above, some of the track seems to tend to want to sink into the ground a bit.

This is a two part problem.

The first part of the problem is likely small inconsistencies in some of the part config compared to the models; a minor difference in some size/length specifications.  This is something that I can fix, and will be looked at for all models during the upcoming model refresh pass.

The second part of the problem, and the far larger of them, is the stock terrain colliders -- they often do not match the visible terrain mesh, and are off by a few (dozen...) CM.  This is likely what you are seeing, and it is different for consecutive launches of the same vehicle -- sometimes the wheels will sink, sometimes they'll float a bit, and sometimes they'll look exactly like intended.  There is zero that I can do to fix this problem.  Note that it also effects the stock wheels, kerbals, and standard part collisions because it is the actual terrain collision meshes that are misplaced.

[Shadowmage]

14 hours ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

Very nice.

Thanks

So far it was just a quick 5min job in Substance Painter... but the results are already quite good.  Will likely do another pass on it this evening to finish adding a few more details, and clean up some of the inconsistencies (need to provide AO/thickness bakes for SP to use...). 

Took far longer to get the model workable from the resources that I had.  DAE models are... strange;  I'm not sure what application they come from, but they apparently don't import into Blender very well.  Lots of issues with embedded texture names or somesuch; have to edit the model files to remove all of those references before I can import them.  I have no idea why people ever thought it was a good idea to embed texture-related anything into binary model files...but KSP does the same;  if you were going to embed anything texture related into the model, they should have embedded the -entire texture- (which would be hard to 'break') rather than just a name/path reference (which breaks simply by changing a file-name or folder structure).

Going to work on converting and re-rigging (at least) one model per day for the next few weeks.  Once all of the initial models have been converted, I can 'fix' the scales on them all (make the model scale = what is desired in game), at which point I can start working through the texture updates / possibly new textures.

If there are any model/texture related issues with the existing parts that anyone would like to see fixed -- either report them immediately, or they will not be fixed.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

3 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Thanks

So far it was just a quick 5min job in Substance Painter... but the results are already quite good.  Will likely do another pass on it this evening to finish adding a few more details, and clean up some of the inconsistencies (need to provide AO/thickness bakes for SP to use...). 

Took far longer to get the model workable from the resources that I had.  DAE models are... strange;  I'm not sure what application they come from, but they apparently don't import into Blender very well.  Lots of issues with embedded texture names or somesuch; have to edit the model files to remove all of those references before I can import them.  I have no idea why people ever thought it was a good idea to embed texture-related anything into binary model files...but KSP does the same;  if you were going to embed anything texture related into the model, they should have embedded the -entire texture- (which would be hard to 'break') rather than just a name/path reference (which breaks simply by changing a file-name or folder structure).

Going to work on converting and re-rigging (at least) one model per day for the next few weeks.  Once all of the initial models have been converted, I can 'fix' the scales on them all (make the model scale = what is desired in game), at which point I can start working through the texture updates / possibly new textures.

If there are any model/texture related issues with the existing parts that anyone would like to see fixed -- either report them immediately, or they will not be fixed.

There's a lot of awesome stuff I've seen that has those two words attached, "Substance Painter".  I really should look at that some time.

[Shadowmage]

5 minutes ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

There's a lot of awesome stuff I've seen that has those two words attached, "Substance Painter".  I really should look at that some time.

@vossiewulf actually informed me of its existence and capabilities.  It is however, not as useful for 'legacy' textures as are used by stock KSP and most mods -- it is far more intended to be used for PBR texturing.  You -can- do legacy textures, but the problem is that many of the built in 'materials' don't support the legacy outputs.

It is quite a beast of a program, and completely changes the way you approach texturing.  Its much more like actually 'painting' on the model than standard PS based texturing work; you layer on 'materials' (such as metal, then paint, then dust), and apply effects to those for specific outcomes (edge wear, dirt buildup, etc).  Did I mention that it is -fast- for most things (after you figure out your workflow and desired outcome)?  With a bit of effort you can even setup standardized material sets + effects that you can just drop onto a model and go; set things up initially, and then it is as close to 'single-click texturing' as you will likely find anywhere.

The downside -- it is a licensed application, and not cheap; there is a 30 day trial, but after that you have to fork over for either a monthly sub (~$20 for a SP + SD + B2M pack), or buy it outright (~$300?).  So, for that alone, I would only recommend it to someone who does a lot of texturing work.  But if you are spending even a few hours a week doing PBR texturing I would say it is well worth the cost;  it took me from 'absolutely hating texturing work' to not really minding it so much.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

3 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

@vossiewulf actually informed me of its existence and capabilities.  It is however, not as useful for 'legacy' textures as are used by stock KSP and most mods -- it is far more intended to be used for PBR texturing.  You -can- do legacy textures, but the problem is that many of the built in 'materials' don't support the legacy outputs.

It is quite a beast of a program, and completely changes the way you approach texturing.  Its much more like actually 'painting' on the model than standard PS based texturing work; you layer on 'materials' (such as metal, then paint, then dust), and apply effects to those for specific outcomes (edge wear, dirt buildup, etc).  Did I mention that it is -fast- for most things (after you figure out your workflow and desired outcome)?  With a bit of effort you can even setup standardized material sets + effects that you can just drop onto a model and go; set things up initially, and then it is as close to 'single-click texturing' as you will likely find anywhere.

The downside -- it is a licensed application, and not cheap; there is a 30 day trial, but after that you have to fork over for either a monthly sub (~$20 for a SP + SD + B2M pack), or buy it outright (~$300?).  So, for that alone, I would only recommend it to someone who does a lot of texturing work.  But if you are spending even a few hours a week doing PBR texturing I would say it is well worth the cost;  it took me from 'absolutely hating texturing work' to not really minding it so much.

Yeah, that's my take on it.  Not super useful for classic KSP texturing, but by golly it looks to do great things if you're doing PBR renders and so on.  So very very tempting, but hard to justify that cost.  Maybe some time when my wife's not reviewing the credit card purchases so closely.

[Shadowmage]

More testing/feedback preview work on PBR texturing.  This time on a bit of a simpler part...  (still just preview testing work; not doing much more than slapping on some materials and setting masks and really basic effects; if I decide to continue down the PBR texture path, the finished products will be more refined)

I'm trying to keep the existing feeling of the Kerbal Foundries textures -- well used industrial machinery.  Not 'new' by any stretch, but not rusted or abused either.  Functional wear and gentle weathering.

To give a peek into the setup of something like this, here is a rough overview of the materials and effects used --

• Steel undercoat for the base, arms, central axle, and body top and bottom caps.   Smooth-worn edge damage on unpainted metal areas (backplate and arm)
• White paint on the top and bottom caps.  Black paint on the central axle.  Edge damage/wear on both.
• Yellow paint background, with black paint stripes.  Edge damage on both (yellow scuffed to reveal white paint; black scuffed to reveal yellow/white depending on how deep)
• Carbon fiber radiator 'fins'....
• Dark blue metallic, with aqua glowing emissive side panels (will light up/pulse when activated)
• Single text stencil on the top ('CAUTION   AG-DEVICE') with minor scuff/damage.
• And, a thin layer of 'dust' buildup on the whole thing, most noticeable in concave corners/crevices

[banditsan]

Hi @Shadowmage,

Nice to see active mod development but i see one issue with stock wheel patch and i think it should be updated first.

At the moment numbers for stock wheels are a bit od.

Agood example small landing gear has bigger load limit then huge industrial wheel  

Similar problem with LY-60 and LY-99 gear. LY-60 simply breakes after 30s or so just standing on runway on stock Stearwing A300 craft

[kcs123]

9 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

The downside -- it is a licensed application, and not cheap; there is a 30 day trial, but after that you have to fork over for either a monthly sub (~$20 for a SP + SD + B2M pack), or buy it outright (~$300?).  So, for that alone, I would only recommend it to someone who does a lot of texturing work. 

Yep, that application catched my attention too, but I postponed buying licence until I can afford it and have more texturing tasks to do. From data available to see capabilities, it seems to be easy to use application, especialy for people who don't like/have skill for standard PS based texturing work but need to do small changes on 3D model (create variations of same model and similar).

Another good tool that catched my attention is Character Creator 3D. Have to grind some money for that one too. It makes modeling job much faster and easier even for those who are familiar with maya, 3DMax and similar applications. Considering the average price of 3D character models, it should be pay off quickly.

Sorry for being offtopic for a bit.

[0111narwhalz]

2 hours ago, kcs123 said:

Sorry for being offtopic for a bit.

You've doomed us all!

7 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Single text stencil on the top ('CAUTION   AG-DEVICE') with minor scuff/damage.

I'm not entirely sure how that's supposed to be read, what with the arm in the way. Perhaps if you rotated the top by 90° it would be more clear.