[v0.90/v.25]Transparent Pods v1.2.2 for KSP v0.90

[nli2work]

Thanks!

And thanks for the heads up re TweakScale. So far I haven't had any problems with TweakScale, mirroring, mesh switch/fuel switch, duplicating and all; works well with FAR too. I'll roll with it for a version or two, and if it's buggy for a lot of people I'll drop it and set the scales back to v1.6.3. Just means I'll have to bite the bullet and build a collection of peripheral parts to support the 2m size. Doing my best to avoid sets of essentially duplicate parts except for size. But like Dragon01 said before, wide compatibility might not be the best thing to do.

Edited October 26, 2014 by nli2work

[Guest]

so you don't use TweakScale at all? I plan on integrating more TweakScale in the future, not less. Otherwise it would become pages of essentially identical parts a different sizes. I think it's more reasonable to default at the common place step of 1.25; 2.5; 3.75; etc. and use TweakScale for intermediate steps like 1.8/2m. 2.5 is halfway, can step up or down without needing new textures or models.

I use it, but delete the configs that come with it. It's good for Infernal Robotics parts, but others can sometimes be very buggy with it. Structural parts (cargobays and such) are fine, anything more complex can run into bugs. You can certainly give landing gears TweakScale functionality (maybe even "free" scaling, getting height just right is always an issue with them), since it's not buggy for them, or at least, not for the stock module. Just be very very careful when giving it to fuel tanks, engines, and such.

Oh, and since you'll be making a new size config, you can set the default to the smallest size just fine. You should do it for backwards compatibility, to ensure old designs are not broken with addition of TweakScale. Also, remember that there's not much point in having TweakScale on adapters from unusual sizes to standard ones. Unless you're designing for RSS (which usually assumes you're using Procedural Parts), there's no point in having an adapter to a size noone uses. This might result in some clutter, but it's more or less necessary.

As for INTERNAL{}s, don't forget that Kerbals have (from what I know) a set size. If you just rescale an existing internal, then they'd look too small compared to the cockpit. By all means, reuse textures, but I'd rather see the models being distinct between the two sizes. Otherwise, you'll get Kerblas sitting in giant, oversized seats, in front of disproportionately huge instrument panels (but with instruments in a funny, small size. Their scale is fixed, too).

Edited October 26, 2014 by Guest

[123nick]

i think i found a bug: the medium rectangular crew cabin seems to be at the original, smaller size scale before the update, unlike the other parts. the compact field science part, is fine though.

[nli2work]

i think i found a bug: the medium rectangular crew cabin seems to be at the original, smaller size scale before the update, unlike the other parts. the compact field science part, is fine though.

It is indeed at the old size.

I use it, but delete the configs that come with it. It's good for Infernal Robotics parts, but others can sometimes be very buggy with it. Structural parts (cargobays and such) are fine, anything more complex can run into bugs. You can certainly give landing gears TweakScale functionality (maybe even "free" scaling, getting height just right is always an issue with them), since it's not buggy for them, or at least, not for the stock module. Just be very very careful when giving it to fuel tanks, engines, and such...

Good points. So far I've only added TweakScale to things like Landing Gears, intakes, and some nose cone parts. nothing complex yet.

Edited October 26, 2014 by nli2work

[Voculus]

I just downloaded your mod, nli2work, and WOW! There's so much potential for some amazing planes and VTOL ships! My only concern, is that my vertical stabilizers are white on one side, and black on the other! Can't wait to see what's next.

[nli2work]

I just downloaded your mod, nli2work, and WOW! There's so much potential for some amazing planes and VTOL ships! My only concern, is that my vertical stabilizers are white on one side, and black on the other! Can't wait to see what's next.

Glad you like it! Don't get too attached yet. Looks like the size on the larger structural sections aren't settled on. I'm now thinking about rolling it back to ~2m as default and let TweakScale step it up and down to the standard 1.25 and 2.5m sizes. will get that settled tomorrow so I can get back to dealing with the backlog of IVAs.

[ctbram]

Hey, can someone tell me how to fix the Eddie 0.625 engine attach y-axis offset so that it does not float below the thing you are attaching it too?

I looked in the .cfg but I am not familiar with the attach_xxx values and don't know how much to adjust the y-axis value such that is attaches properly.

Thanks,

Here is the module manager fix I made to the ED051 == 0.625 Eddie Engine

@PART[ED051]
{

%node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.10, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0
%node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.10, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0

}

Edited October 26, 2014 by ctbram

[Damaske]

Nil2work, Here is a highlight that I am very proud of that features your mods, cockpit, engine, landing gear and body. As with shameless plug for my skill at flying heh.

http://www.twitch.tv/damaske/c/5368273

Link to another showing off just maneuverable that craft is with stock physics.

[Mekan1k]

Can the next update include a set of IVA's for the new cockpit and the duck-billed platypus cockpit?

[ctbram]

I have found an issue with the Eddie series engines. With SAS they start so oscillate wildly. Can one of the devs look into this. It can be reproduced by simply creating a porbe made up of the octagonal probe core, a 1/8 1.25 tank, and the engine. Put it in orbit and then just make some orbital height changes. Start at say 80km and then go to 250km. For me it starts to oscillate pretty badly. I think 5deg of gimbal may be to much.

[slumpie]

@nil2work

You made a little mistake with the inlinemaingear config:

texture = latMainLG_NRM, RetroFuture/Texturesr/latMainLG_NRM

but correct would be:

texture = latMainLG_NRM, RetroFuture/Textures/latMainLG_NRM

I was checking the logs because of something else, but I thought I better let you know.

[nli2work]

Thanks for the bug reports. will fix them soon.

@ctbram, I don't get the same effect with a test craft with parts you mentioned. Even if I change directions at full throttle the most oscillation I get is maybe a degree or two.

@Mekan1k, that's the plan. X31 cockpit has been in development since 3 or 4 versions back, I really need to get it to a more finished state

[Kirondoll]

Hi nli2work,

May I suggest you to add the deadly reentry configs to your mod?

[nli2work]

Hi nli2work,

May I suggest you to add the deadly reentry configs to your mod?

definitely in the plans.

[EpicCybertronian]

There are no wings on my version, and Procedural Dynamics won't work with this mod, it stops loading at the loading screen.

[nli2work]

make sure MM is installed. make sure you have the up to date version of pWings

if all else fails, follow the directions here and send me your log

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92229-How-To-Get-Support-%28READ-FIRST%29

[juskom95]

There are no wings on my version, and Procedural Dynamics won't work with this mod, it stops loading at the loading screen.

It looks like a problem with Procedural Wings and not Retro Future. Try the .dll in this post ( http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/29862-0-25-Procedural-Dynamics-Procedural-Wing-0-9-1?p=1492738&viewfull=1#post1492738 ).

I tested Retrofuture with Procedural Wings in a clean setup, and that seemed to fix it.

[Damaske]

Troubles in Bomber haven, The 2.5 version if the med cargo bay top open will not work with BDArmory when you flip the part over. Can you make a bomb bay version of the med cargo bay top open? I did notice there was a 2m bomb bay but due to issues with tweak scale I had removed it from my install.

Anyway that all aside I have made a few very nice propjob planes out of the med body set.

[nli2work]

what do mean not work? the door is too small? it opens too wide?

There is a slight lip on the top open bay. A separate bomb bay is unlikely for the near future. I've been using the utility section as open bomb bays for the most part, using I-beams for center divider, couple of those has enough room for 4 cluster bombs along with 8 500lb bombs

Edited October 29, 2014 by nli2work

[Damaske]

The way that the BDarmory works it thinks that the bottom/now the top is the bottom and it fires the upper most missile and it blows everything up. I might try the Utility section opened up although its not as pretty as a true bomb bay. I took a 2x2 placed like 20 hellfires on it and the placed them into the now upside down bay and it was firing the upper most missile instead of the one closest to the opening. Taking off that check does worse as it is a random missile that fires.

I am sure that the code for the bomb clearance can use a rework also but a "real" bomb bay for that side would be nice and not an upside down top opening bay.

[nli2work]

The way that the BDarmory works it thinks that the bottom/now the top is the bottom and it fires the upper most missile and it blows everything up. I might try the Utility section opened up although its not as pretty as a true bomb bay. I took a 2x2 placed like 20 hellfires on it and the placed them into the now upside down bay and it was firing the upper most missile instead of the one closest to the opening. Taking off that check does worse as it is a random missile that fires.

I am sure that the code for the bomb clearance can use a rework also but a "real" bomb bay for that side would be nice and not an upside down top opening bay.

That would mean the stock mk2 bays wouldn't work either? I'll test them some more. I'll look at doing some surface attach missile/bomb bays after I get done with the IVAs

[Damaske]

It might be how I am placing the missiles onto the holding parts, as it is doing the same thing with the 2m bomb bays. I'm going to do some more testing and then post it over in the BDArmory thread maybe with my sub-assembles for testing to find out WTF is going on. The more I think about it it may also be in the order of how I place the missiles onto the part that is holding them IE If I am starting at the top and working my way down it might fire from that first placed missile.

[Kamuchi]

Just tried it and it`s awsome!

Trying to get a more "real" craft, I ran into some issues that all other parts just look to clean and ofcourse the answer is to use the same parts with a tweak

Added tweakscale to some of the fuel and adapter parts, not all are in yet as I`m still toying with it and the hull parts I like to use "as is"

Would recommend to just save it in gamedata root so you don`t delete it by accident when upgrading this or tweakscale.

MODULE
{
name = TweakScale
type = stack
}
}


@PART[*mHoodAdpter]
{
MODULE
{
name = TweakScale
type = stack
}
}


@PART[med*mTankShort]
{
MODULE
{
name = TweakScale
type = stack
}
}


@PART[wingMount*]
{
MODULE
{
name = TweakScale
type = stack
}
}


@PART[rect*mTpr]
{
MODULE
{
name = TweakScale
type = stack
}
}


@PART[rect*mAdptr]
{
MODULE
{
name = TweakScale
type = stack
}
}


@PART[med*mAdapter]
{
MODULE
{
name = TweakScale
type = stack
}
}


@PART[med*mTail*]
{
MODULE
{
name = TweakScale
type = stack
}
}


@PART[med*mAdapter]
{
MODULE
{
name = TweakScale
type = stack
}
}

@PART[surfAdapter]
{
MODULE
{
name = TweakScale
type = stack
}
}

@PART[rect*m]{

If you use GoodSpeed pumps then this fixes the multiple resource parts to show the balance/pump options [this is for B9 and every multiple resource part, not just RetroFuture]

@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[FSfuelSwitch],!MODULE[ModuleCommand],!MODULE[GoodspeedPump]]
{
MODULE
{
name = GoodspeedPump
}
}

Cheers & thanks!

[SmiteZero]

May I humbly suggest a new part? The aerodynamic strake.

for eg:

Also, are these parts DeadlyRe-entry compatible? If not, they should be

Edited October 30, 2014 by SmiteZero

[nli2work]

May I humbly suggest a new part? The aerodynamic strake.

for eg:

http://www.mach-flyg.com/utg80/bilder/fullsize/80jas9.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/Strakes_annotated.svg/220px-Strakes_annotated.svg.png

Also, are these parts DeadlyRe-entry compatible? If not, they should be

Strake basically is a very short wing no? you don't use pWings?

DRC MM configs I can promise. Strakes are lower priority, I'm inclined to stick with pWings for all the lifting surface requirements.

Edited October 30, 2014 by nli2work