[1.2.2] Stock Part Revamp, Update 1.9.6. Released Source Files!

[Nertea]

It's like I want this to be stock, but I also don't, because then I'd have to redo all my things to a higher standard .

[temporalExile]

It's like I want this to be stock, but I also don't, because then I'd have to redo all my things to a higher standard .

Actually, I use your pack alongside this one, and they mix really well, even better than they do with stock parts.

[BudgetHedgehog]

I posted this on the MechJeb forum, but after some further testing, it looks like it's this mod that's causing this:

http://i.imgur.com/WTccql1.png

(Note the acceleration values and TWR in the MechJeb display)

So, I tried to replicate your problem and I have good news and bad news - the good news is that yes, I could replicate it. The bad news is that it's MJ, not SPR.

KER reports the correct acceleration, thrust and TWR etc.. That's why you couldn't see anything out of the ordinary in the configs - because there is nothing out of the ordinary. Bring it up with sarbian

(also note that yes, I do have FAR installed unlike MainSailor, but was still able to replicate the problem).

Edited November 5, 2014 by ObsessedWithKSP

[AzureAngel17]

Love the new models, Ven! I haven't messed around much with tweaking mods myself, but if I were doing a custom install of only certain revamp parts, can I just delete the parts I don't want from the package, or do I also need to delete the relevant entries in the Module Manager file? Fiddling with it on a copy of my KSP install now to see if I can't figure it out myself. Will I run into any issues of parts that share textures if I'm cherrypicking the pack?

[MainSailor]

So, I tried to replicate your problem and I have good news and bad news - the good news is that yes, I could replicate it. The bad news is that it's MJ, not SPR.

KER reports the correct acceleration, thrust and TWR etc.. That's why you couldn't see anything out of the ordinary in the configs - because there is nothing out of the ordinary. Bring it up with sarbian

(also note that yes, I do have FAR installed unlike MainSailor, but was still able to replicate the problem).

I saw your reply on the MJ thread too. I think it's something specific to an engine config since the engines Ven's pack doesn't modify (the Rocko 48-7S for instance) still shows correctly, as well as any other non-stock engine (KW, as I mentioned.)

Odd that KER and FAR show the information correctly....I actually noticed that even the Limit Accel option in Ascent Guidance worked correctly, as did the Terminal Velocity limit. But Landing Guidance et al must read from the value shown in Vessel Info as they completely hose up any operation they're involved in.

I'm guessing that something in the MM patch changes a config that MJ reads....but I have no way of guessing which since I neither know how MJ's programming works nor am I very familiar with MM scripting.

Off topic:

...but I also don't, because then I'd have to redo all my things to a higher standard .

Dude what!? Your stuff is great...all your parts are on my 'always installed' list.

[Whirligig Girl]

It's like I want this to be stock, but I also don't, because then I'd have to redo all my things to a higher standard .

Your parts are actually the most vena-stocka-like mod that exists. You might have to redo the station parts pack in it's entirety though.

The NearFuture parts are mostly good enough, imo.

[Ven]

I saw your reply on the MJ thread too. I think it's something specific to an engine config since the engines Ven's pack doesn't modify (the Rocko 48-7S for instance) still shows correctly, as well as any other non-stock engine (KW, as I mentioned.)

I'm guessing that something in the MM patch changes a config that MJ reads....but I have no way of guessing which since I neither know how MJ's programming works nor am I very familiar with MM scripting.

Currently, the only changes to the engine CFGs is the addition modulelookFX and the modified gimbal locations.

Even then, you mentioned that the mainsail was bugging out, but it's CFG is basically untouched (the emmissive name was changed, but that shouldn't effect MJ calculations).

Have you tried running MJ on just a stock install?

Or maybe rolling back to an older version may fix the problem.

[Ven]

Love the new models, Ven! I haven't messed around much with tweaking mods myself, but if I were doing a custom install of only certain revamp parts, can I just delete the parts I don't want from the package, or do I also need to delete the relevant entries in the Module Manager file? Fiddling with it on a copy of my KSP install now to see if I can't figure it out myself. Will I run into any issues of parts that share textures if I'm cherrypicking the pack?

Currently you need to avoid deleting any of the 2.5m tanks (The 64 excluded), The RCS thanks (2.5m tank excluded), the .625m tanks, and the structural girders, panels and trusses. They all share textures between themselves, so if you remove the main texture, you'll get white/gray parts.

Everything else can be deleted at will, but you may need to edit out the MM entry for the parts in question.

[AzureAngel17]

Thanks, trying to get as much of your remodels as I can without breaking other mods.

[Neutrinovore]

Love the new models, Ven! I haven't messed around much with tweaking mods myself, but if I were doing a custom install of only certain revamp parts, can I just delete the parts I don't want from the package, or do I also need to delete the relevant entries in the Module Manager file? Fiddling with it on a copy of my KSP install now to see if I can't figure it out myself. Will I run into any issues of parts that share textures if I'm cherrypicking the pack?

I've had some problems recently with 'cherry picking' parts packs, due to the relatively new but increasingly popular trend of texture sharing, and I think I've come up with a solution.

If you don't want a certain part in the editors (VAB/SPH), but you have another mod that refers to that part's textures, the only thing you should delete from the folder of the 'target' part is the actual part .cfg file, and perhaps the model file (.mu suffix) if you're SURE that the model goes ONLY with the part you want to get rid of. But leave all of the texture files in place. This way, if another mod wants to use those textures, it will find them where it expects to. The advantage of this is that you avoid parts bloat in the editors, but the disadvantage is that the game will still be loading all of the textures into memory even if you're not necessarily using them. The only thing I can say to that is to use the Active Texture Management mod to reduce the memory usage as much as possible.

Now, if you don't want certain parts from this mod, then yes, you should be safe in removing anything from THIS mod's folder that refers to the part(s) you don't want.

I hope this info helps.

[HafCoJoe]

Shimmy's doing a review on this now! Nice job.

[Zeenobit]

I really do love this pack. Some of the parts are just amazing.

With the last update though, I'm not a huge fan of the new 2.5m engines. Especially the Poodle variant. Poodle was a relatively low-profile engine useful for 2.5 landers. The current design is much taller (or at least it looks that way to me), which changes the actual purpose.

Beyond that, awesome job!

[BudgetHedgehog]

Poodle was a relatively low-profile engine useful for 2.5 landers. The current design is much taller (or at least it looks that way to me), which changes the actual purpose.

It only looks taller because it's missing everything but the nozzle:

Stock:

Revamp:

Compared:

They're the same height - something that Ven has intended to do since he started - the idea is that you can install this and not break any existing craft designs. If old landing legs could clear the old Poodle, they can clear this new Rockomax Service Engine.

@Ven: I didn't get round to testing the other tanks, but you can see here that they (or at least, the Rock16) are still not transluscent. I'll check all the tanks now and make a new post with the findings.

Edited November 6, 2014 by ObsessedWithKSP

[Zeenobit]

It only looks taller because it's missing everything but the nozzle:

Stock:http://i.imgur.com/JPytXfB.png

Revamp: http://i.imgur.com/dOCKeoi.jpg

Compared: http://i.imgur.com/wlnIpG1.jpg

They're the same height - something that Ven has intended to do since he started - the idea is that you can install this and not break any existing craft designs. If old landing legs could clear the old Poodle, they can clear this new Rockomax Service Engine.

Thanks for clarifying this!

Nevermind then. The only flaw with the mod is out the window.

[Andersenman]

"Docking ports now have short range lights!"

I love you, man!

Edited November 6, 2014 by Andersenman

[MainSailor]

Currently, the only changes to the engine CFGs is the addition modulelookFX and the modified gimbal locations.

Even then, you mentioned that the mainsail was bugging out, but it's CFG is basically untouched (the emmissive name was changed, but that shouldn't effect MJ calculations).

I'll test the Mainsail again tonight. I know that I noticed the behavior specifically on the Skipper and LV909 engines, and yesterday I believe I had tested them all individually.

I can't see how the emissive name would screw up MJ either. MJ has been copacetic with the ModuleFX stuff too since the .24 versions were out.

Have you tried running MJ on just a stock install?

Yeah. Stock engines worked fine. All others work fine.

Or maybe rolling back to an older version may fix the problem.

Are you kidding? I'd rather have the new engines and deal with the bugs than go back to the old Poodle (bleh.) I just wish I knew enough about what was happening to offer a solution.

[Whirligig Girl]

Solution: Don't use MechJeb!

[MainSailor]

Solution: Don't use MechJeb!

Oh boy this debate again.

Just kidding. Yes I know, I'm a 'dirty casual' MechJeb user. Some of us are better engineers than we are pilots and for me, designing the system is much more fun than manually flying it.

[Starwaster]

I just wish I knew enough about what was happening to offer a solution.

I notice you haven't posted a log file. My guess is that an error is being thrown somewhere and it's happening at a point before MJ is calculating that engine's thrust for that info window. But it's impossible to know because nobody will post a log file.

Solution: Don't use MechJeb!

Solution: Stop proselytizing!

[CommanderSmith]

So what's the story with your Science Lab IVA? It looks amazing by the way. Is it just taking time to do?

[Justin Kerbice]

@ven: what about the mk1 cockpit with integrated air intake ? The two small "vents" on the sides looks like intakes, they could be small but enough to cruise at moderate speed with a basic jet engine.

[MainSailor]

I notice you haven't posted a log file. My guess is that an error is being thrown somewhere and it's happening at a point before MJ is calculating that engine's thrust for that info window. But it's impossible to know because nobody will post a log file.

I didn't and I'm embarassed now because I know that's Rule Number ONE with a bullet point.

I've been messing around so much with various copies that I haven't pulled one yet. I'll get a clean copy tonight with just Ven's and MJ installed and see if I can pull anything worth while.

[Xmander]

Xmander, did you get everything installed ok? Also, are you playing on OSX by any chance? The default behavior on OSX is to completely replace the destination folder with the original, so it's in effect deleting and replacing instead of merging.

Also, if you're on Windows, you're not deleting the stock Squad folder first, right? You should just be dragging the new Squad folder over the stock one and then replacing the folders & files as they come up.

Yeah, been having trouble still. I kind of gave up a little lol, but yeah im on OSX so I'll try to merge it a little different.

[Robotengineer]

Yeah, been having trouble still. I kind of gave up a little lol, but yeah im on OSX so I'll try to merge it a little different.

On OS X, rather drag it into you GameData folder, copy and paste it, then it should give the option to merge.

[Starwaster]

On OS X, rather drag it into you GameData folder, copy and paste it, then it should give the option to merge.

Newer versions will do that, yes. (anything newer than Snow Leopard I think but take that with a grain of salt)

Older versions will happily obliterate whatever folder you thought would be merged. Problem with that? You were holding your computer wrong.