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

[Stratickus]

On a slightly related note.. Is there a way via a MM patch or an existing fix (similar to above) that generates an appropriate sized shroud when using a different sized attachment node?

For example: If using the default attachment node for a 0.625m engine (Spark or Thunder) when attaching something below it, an appropriately sized 0.625m shroud is generated. However, if using the alternate size 1, 1.25m attachment node that generates the tank butt, the same 0.625m shroud is still generated when attaching something below it, creating an oddly hour glass shaped ship.

If the tank butt and tank buttless versions of the same engine are different models as suggested above, is it reasonable to assume that different shrouds can be applied to the different 'sized' engines?

Cheers,

[nerf_hurrdurr]

On 1/5/2017 at 9:20 PM, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

The drag issue should be resolved if you've really grabbed the latest version from that branch.  (I've also just pushed a commit that adds a CLS patch that had been left out.)

The legs were taken out of the main repo back when KSP 1.1 dropped.  Someone else on the forum dug up the models and fixed them, and there were a couple of 'interim' releases that had rotation issues, but those are resolved.  (But I haven't added them to my branch.)

Thanks for the heads up re: drag. I must have missed that when I was catching up!

Is there any plan to host your fork/patch of this on CKAN? Not sure if that's just too much of headache, or if it's somehow complicated by right's issues with Ven, but as I understand it the version currently linked on CKAN is not the most recent and will break the current game.

Again, thanks for all your hard work on this mod - it really is one that makes or breaks the game for me!

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

25 minutes ago, nerf_hurrdurr said:

Is there any plan to host your fork/patch of this on CKAN?

No.

[blowfish]

34 minutes ago, nerf_hurrdurr said:

Is there any plan to host your fork/patch of this on CKAN? Not sure if that's just too much of headache, or if it's somehow complicated by right's issues with Ven, but as I understand it the version currently linked on CKAN is not the most recent and will break the current game.

Just to provide a little more context on why this wouldn't happen, while Ven seems to have been rather absent lately, no one else has officially taken over maintaining this mod.  Ven can at any point click a single button to merge these changes in then release a new version which would appear on CKAN.

[nerf_hurrdurr]

7 hours ago, blowfish said:

Just to provide a little more context on why this wouldn't happen, while Ven seems to have been rather absent lately, no one else has officially taken over maintaining this mod.  Ven can at any point click a single button to merge these changes in then release a new version which would appear on CKAN.

Thanks Blowfish, I assumed it was something along those lines.

[darvo110]

On 09/01/2017 at 4:38 AM, Stratickus said:

On a slightly related note.. Is there a way via a MM patch or an existing fix (similar to above) that generates an appropriate sized shroud when using a different sized attachment node?

For example: If using the default attachment node for a 0.625m engine (Spark or Thunder) when attaching something below it, an appropriately sized 0.625m shroud is generated. However, if using the alternate size 1, 1.25m attachment node that generates the tank butt, the same 0.625m shroud is still generated when attaching something below it, creating an oddly hour glass shaped ship.

If the tank butt and tank buttless versions of the same engine are different models as suggested above, is it reasonable to assume that different shrouds can be applied to the different 'sized' engines?

Cheers,

This would be a really good feature. I have the opposite problem when attaching the Skipper to a 1.25 fuel tank as well. For now I just ditch the shrouds and make my own using fairings. Less than ideal but works okay.

[Stratickus]

14 minutes ago, darvo110 said:

This would be a really good feature. I have the opposite problem when attaching the Skipper to a 1.25 fuel tank as well. For now I just ditch the shrouds and make my own using fairings. Less than ideal but works okay.

It's basically the same issue. I have the same problem using the Poodle/Skipper etc, but just used the smaller engine as an example. 

[blowfish]

On 1/8/2017 at 9:38 AM, Stratickus said:

On a slightly related note.. Is there a way via a MM patch or an existing fix (similar to above) that generates an appropriate sized shroud when using a different sized attachment node?

For example: If using the default attachment node for a 0.625m engine (Spark or Thunder) when attaching something below it, an appropriately sized 0.625m shroud is generated. However, if using the alternate size 1, 1.25m attachment node that generates the tank butt, the same 0.625m shroud is still generated when attaching something below it, creating an oddly hour glass shaped ship.

If the tank butt and tank buttless versions of the same engine are different models as suggested above, is it reasonable to assume that different shrouds can be applied to the different 'sized' engines?

Cheers,

You would need a custom plugin to do this, again, the problem being drag cubes and the fact that the stock modules were really only designed to handle two of them at a time (for most engines this is shrouded and unshrouded).

[SmashBrown]

ty @Kerbas_ad_astra

[Fizwalker]

On 1/5/2017 at 8:04 PM, cyberpunkdreams said:

I've got a weird problem, using the fork given immediately above (clean install). Basically, some stock solar panels are in their deployed state in the VAB; using the menu to extend and retract them works fine, but the deployed version just stays their on top. Some of the stock engines are also stuck with their fairing and bumper deployed, even when not needed. These things persist into flight mode.

I do have a lot of mods installed, so of course there could be a conflict there. Anyone have any other ideas though?

Thanks.

I also have this issue, (Issue is fixed) though I only have a few mods at the moment: Procedural Parts, Wings, Fairings, and SVE, and Mechjeb. My MM version is 2.7.5.  I am running KSP 1.2.2 and Kerbas_Ad_Astras fork and my output log is at the following link.

Output.log

Here is a link to a picture of the issue.

Link to an image example

Game hasn't crashed, but if you need anything else, let me know!

Thank you for your help in advance!

 

SOLUTION: I found an extra directory labeled GameData inside my GameData folder.  Removing this folder seems to have fixed the issue with solar panels starting deployed.... Fairings and tank butts starting deployed.

Edited January 14, 2017 by Fizwalker
Solved issue

[MHgamer1107]

Any updates on the release for 1.2?

[cyberpunkdreams]

On 14/01/2017 at 2:17 AM, Fizwalker said:

SOLUTION: I found an extra directory labeled GameData inside my GameData folder.  Removing this folder seems to have fixed the issue with solar panels starting deployed.... Fairings and tank butts starting deployed.

Nice!

Edit: I don't have the same problem... but at least now I can start looking.

Another edit: I've found my dupe, in MagicSmokeIndustries/AssetBundles. Must be bundled with the MagicSmoke suite and I didn't realise.

Edited January 18, 2017 by cyberpunkdreams

[marchingknight11]

I'm having an issue with the 1.2 version's model of the M700. The model is messed up.

[robson1000]

Three things I noticed:

1. In file Extra_Structural_Parts.cfg there is a bug in MM patch:

Spoiler

+PART[structuralPanel2]:FIRST {
	!mesh = DELETE
    %scale = 1
    %rescaleFactor = 1
    MODEL {
        model = VenStockRevamp/Squad/Parts/Structural/Panel3x3
	}
	node_stack_top = 0, 0.0275, 0, 0,-1, 0, 0
	node_stack_bottom = 0,-0.0275, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0
	node_attach = -1.4895, 0, 0, -1, 0, 0, 0
	@cost = 200
	@description = Nine M-1x1 have been arranged in a 3x3 layout for this part, then stuck together with two-part epoxy, none of that namby pamby super glue.
	@tags ^= :$: (ven (vsr:
	@title = M-3x3 Structural Panel
	@mass = 0.675
}

 

there is no line which renaming part: @name = structuralPanel3.

2. ModuleScienceContainer in MK2 'VA' Command Pod has storageRange = 1, with that range kerbal on iva is unable store experiment or take data. Stock Mk1 command pod has storageRange 1.3.

3. HG-20 High Gain Antenna has category Science, all antennas are now in category Communication.

[Svm420]

Is the 909B engine broken for anyone else? I noticed in my log that the model has some error and is not loaded. I wanted to mention this as I saw no one else talking about it being broken. I know Ven is not around so if it can't be fixed atm I understand. If I need to just log an issue on GitHub let me know. I searched and found nothing recent for my issue. Thanks!

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

On 1/22/2017 at 0:50 PM, robson1000 said:

Three things I noticed:

1. In file Extra_Structural_Parts.cfg there is a bug in MM patch:

  Hide contents

+PART[structuralPanel2]:FIRST {
	!mesh = DELETE
    %scale = 1
    %rescaleFactor = 1
    MODEL {
        model = VenStockRevamp/Squad/Parts/Structural/Panel3x3
	}
	node_stack_top = 0, 0.0275, 0, 0,-1, 0, 0
	node_stack_bottom = 0,-0.0275, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0
	node_attach = -1.4895, 0, 0, -1, 0, 0, 0
	@cost = 200
	@description = Nine M-1x1 have been arranged in a 3x3 layout for this part, then stuck together with two-part epoxy, none of that namby pamby super glue.
	@tags ^= :$: (ven (vsr:
	@title = M-3x3 Structural Panel
	@mass = 0.675
}

 

there is no line which renaming part: @name = structuralPanel3.

2. ModuleScienceContainer in MK2 'VA' Command Pod has storageRange = 1, with that range kerbal on iva is unable store experiment or take data. Stock Mk1 command pod has storageRange 1.3.

3. HG-20 High Gain Antenna has category Science, all antennas are now in category Communication.

Fixed, thanks for the heads up!

[doudou]

5 hours ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

Correction, merci pour le heads up!

@  

When you make corrections, is the download also updated?

[Phineas Freak]

On 1/27/2017 at 0:45 AM, Svm420 said:

Is the 909B engine broken for anyone else? I noticed in my log that the model has some error and is not loaded. I wanted to mention this as I saw no one else talking about it being broken.

The 909B model is deprecated and should probably be removed from the final release (IIRC the model was never fixed and no part module ever used it). Tagging @Kerbas_ad_astra.

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

8 hours ago, doudou said:

@  

When you make corrections, is the download also updated?

Which download?  The corrections are updated 'live' on my personal fork, but the links on the front page still point to the old 1.9.5 release from KSP 1.1.3.

7 hours ago, Phineas Freak said:

The 909B model is deprecated and should probably be removed from the final release (IIRC the model was never fixed and no part module ever used it). Tagging @Kerbas_ad_astra.

Snipped.

What are folks' thoughts on incorporating @EmbersArc's fixed legs? I think they're about ready for prime-time, and I've just tested them on my end and found that they don't cause trouble for 'upgrading' saves that have landed ships (i.e. no explosions or the like, maybe a hair of jostling).

[MalevolentNinja]

20 hours ago, Phineas Freak said:

The 909B model is deprecated and should probably be removed from the final release (IIRC the model was never fixed and no part module ever used it). Tagging @Kerbas_ad_astra.

 

12 hours ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

Snipped.

@Kerbas_ad_astra I'm all for getting rid of the Beagle, but it wasn't an orphaned .mu file. There's still a part cfg for it and other references in your 1.2 branch.

Check:

• GameData\VenStockRevamp\Part Bin\liquidEngineLV-900.cfg
• GameData\VenStockRevamp\VSR-Hotrockets.cfg
• GameData\VenStockRevamp\PathPatches\Engines-PathPatches.cfg

Nevermind, I see now you got rid of an unused model. There's also a "VenLV909b" part but it uses a different model.

Edited January 29, 2017 by MalevolentNinja

[EmbersArc]

20 hours ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

What are folks' thoughts on incorporating @EmbersArc's fixed legs? I think they're about ready for prime-time, and I've just tested them on my end and found that they don't cause trouble for 'upgrading' saves that have landed ships (i.e. no explosions or the like, maybe a hair of jostling).

Someone a while back reported that they would break the leg deploy action group on existing craft. Can anyone confirm that? If that's true then I could try to leave the ModuleWheelDeployment unchanged which might be causing the problem.

Download link

Edited January 29, 2017 by EmbersArc

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

That hasn't happened in my testing -- I deployed craft with stock legs (all 3 kinds), toggled their gear (twice), restarted the game with your legs, and the gear action group still worked.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Kerbas_ad_astra

[Timmy1404]

Hey,

I'm sorry but I am new in this Forum. Also, english isn't my mothertounge.

 

I read the last few pages but I couldn't find a download link to a "working" version of the mod. Is there even a working one right now (V 1.2)?

I understood it like this: The community is working on the mod together as Ven is inactive right now (?) I found a link to a "VensShared" Dropbox. How do I have to install it? If I put in in the GameData folder it just crashes at the loading screen.

I really like this mod and would love to use it for my next carreer game.

Edited January 30, 2017 by Timmy1404
How do I install?

[alexus]

is mod support version 1.2.2?

[Benji13]

4 minutes ago, alexus said:

is mod support version 1.2.2?

I highly suggest using your eyes and looking at the couple posts above yours. Please actually look at posts before asking questions, especially questions banned by the Forum rules.