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

[scottadges]

Hi all, checking back into KSP forums on some of my favorite mods to see how they're faring before doing a complete re-install for 1.6 version.

I've loved Ven's revamp forever, but I'm wondering how much (or maybe only specific parts) conflicts with the recent updated parts?

I see the posts above about the Mk2 Can and some engines, but maybe that's not as broken as originally thought?

Is it still worth using Ven's or are the Squad revamps more on point now? I always felt some of the part artwork & models looked "amateur" and found Ven's to be so much cooler.

Thanks for any thoughts!

[Electrocutor]

@Kerbas_ad_astra Did you see the two new variant properties? disabledAnimations and disabledEvents

These should help with some of the Ven variants like docking ports so the animation buttons and action lists are correct for the currently selected variant.

Edited December 27, 2018 by Electrocutor

[Rawenwarcrow]

@scottadges as said before, the problems with the Mk2 Can and the engines isn't due to Ven's; there's not a lot of conflicts, exept for some textures on some tanks (2.5 m if I remember correctly, and even that could be caused by another mod...), and all in all, it still worth it; the new textures are not as bad as the old ones, and it's of course totaly subjective, but some of them are still a bit "clumsy", and it's still cool to have a bit of variety.

Talking about variety, as I love to have Ven's, Missing History and Partoverhauls, and there's some conflicts between the two first, @Kerbas_ad_astra, would you ever think, if it's not too complex, to make it, or a version of it, where all parts, including variants, could be separated, using the same model but with a slightly different name? I'd do it myself, if I knew how, but it's definitely not my thing  

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

4 hours ago, Rawenwarcrow said:

@scottadges as said before, the problems with the Mk2 Can and the engines isn't due to Ven's; there's not a lot of conflicts, exept for some textures on some tanks (2.5 m if I remember correctly, and even that could be caused by another mod...), and all in all, it still worth it; the new textures are not as bad as the old ones, and it's of course totaly subjective, but some of them are still a bit "clumsy", and it's still cool to have a bit of variety.

Talking about variety, as I love to have Ven's, Missing History and Partoverhauls, and there's some conflicts between the two first, @Kerbas_ad_astra, would you ever think, if it's not too complex, to make it, or a version of it, where all parts, including variants, could be separated, using the same model but with a slightly different name? I'd do it myself, if I knew how, but it's definitely not my thing  

Some parts like engines can definitely be split up that way (I've done that with VSR couple of times, like with the O-10 and Comms 88 dish), but it's going to get impractical as Squad revamps more models, and if the IVA changes (as it has done for the Mk1-3 pod and Mk2 lander can) then something won't look right.

I won't be in a position to work diligently on this for a couple of weeks; we'll see how things stand then.

Also many thanks @Electrocutor for that heads-up...I don't think that will matter for any parts currently (Squad hasn't revamped their docking ports yet, so there's no reason to keep their models) but that should be handy going forward.

[pap1723]

@Kerbas_ad_astra

Would it be okay if we fork your 1.4.4(5) version into the Realism Overhaul repo in order to properly release it on CKAN so users can install easier?

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

14 hours ago, pap1723 said:

@Kerbas_ad_astra

Would it be okay if we fork your 1.4.4(5) version into the Realism Overhaul repo in order to properly release it on CKAN so users can install easier?

There was a complaint in that 'issue' on GitHub about the new model for the Poodle (which I understand, it's quite a bit beefier than the stock model)...you want me to make the change I talked about a few posts ago first?

On 11/30/2018 at 10:31 PM, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

Yeah, the positions of the part centers are 'fixed' at construction time, and then the models get draped around those points.  Ven's Poodle model is longer than the stock model, and so for e.g. the Kerbal X, that length has to go somewhere.  I chose to put it out the bottom, but that means that there is a risk of intersection between two parts in the moment the lower stage is ejected.  I've never had them explode before, but I could believe that depends on the exact decoupler used below the Poodle and how its colliders are arranged.  I'll try moving the model up (and testing what it does to vehicles in-flight) before too long.

[pap1723]

That would be excellent! 

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

On 1/3/2019 at 1:03 PM, pap1723 said:

That would be excellent! 

I've made that change in the 1.4 branch (and carried it forward into the 1.5 branch, which will spawn the 1.6 branch before too long).  When upgrading from stock, the extra length going from the (old) stock model to Ven's model will now be moved up, into the fuel tank above the engine, rather than down into the decoupler, which caused some explosions for @Delay and perhaps others.  You may make a release for KSP 1.4.5 on CKAN.

Of course, now 1.6 has made the Poodle look more like Ven's first Poodle model (i.e. the Apollo Service Propulsion System)...I'm happy to put Ven's first model back, but that leaves the question of what to do with the 'ball' model.  Squad says the original Poodle model was based on the Payload Assist Module; I suppose I could make it an SRB?

(Edit: also, what to do about the large monopropellant engine I made to use Ven's first Poodle model when it got replaced in the first place...)

(Edit 2: Maybe leave the new stock Poodle model alone, since it looks pretty nice, and keep Ven's SPS model as the monopropellant engine?)

Edited January 11, 2019 by Kerbas_ad_astra

[Tyko]

@Kerbas_ad_astra I was playing around with your 1.5 build of VSR. Looks like you've been cleaning things up a lot - congrats! 

About half the parts that are actually original VSR parts won't work if I remove the Squad and PathPatches folder. For example, the alternate Oscar tanks and all the new structural parts disappear. Not sure if this is working as intended because i thought that all the VSR originals should reside entirely in the Part Bin.

If this is something you're trying to update and need further detective work I can poke around for the pieces that are in the wrong folder.

[Stone Blue]

1 hour ago, Tyko said:

About half the parts that are actually original VSR parts won't work if I remove the Squad and PathPatches folder.

Isnt that because Ven's still re-uses/refences some of the stock models, textures, and all the cfgs?

[Tyko]

25 minutes ago, Stone Blue said:

Isnt that because Ven's still re-uses/refences some of the stock models, textures, and all the cfgs?

I wasn't sure..if he's referencing stock textures the removal of the Squad folder shouldn't matter because the stock textures wouldn't be in there. My guess is there are some VSR textures that were used for stock replacements and THOSE textures were also used for the VSR original parts. I haven't really dug into it yet because Kerbas may already have this cleanup on his to-do list.

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

That happens because some parts in the PartBin folder refer to models in the Squad folder (and some vice-versa).  Many of Ven's parts share texture files, so parts that 'fit in' and share design elements with stock parts (such as many fuel tanks and solar panels) will have their models hang out together as well.

It's easy to find which ones are affected by this (search for instances of "VenStockRevamp/Squad" in the Part Bin configs, and vice versa), but moving the models from one folder to the other would require duplicating texture files, and would also break external configs that rely on those model locations.

[Stone Blue]

Wait... wot?? ohh... theres a /Squad folder inside */Ven's* folder... nvm

wait... no, theres a way to move/seperate models and textures around folders, without having to duplicate... (several ways, actually)

 

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

12 hours ago, Stone Blue said:

wait... no, theres a way to move/seperate models and textures around folders, without having to duplicate... (several ways, actually)

Now that you mention it, yes -- separate the models, give them single-pixel 'textures' to go with them, have the real textures in a common folder, and then specify the actual texture paths in the config file.  Is it necessary to do this, though?  Is there much demand for being able to delete the replacement models?  I've found a couple of mods that link to VSR models and textures in their current locations (not huge ones, but enough that I'd rather not shuffle things and break compatibility).

[Stone Blue]

4 hours ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

Now that you mention it, yes -- separate the models, give them single-pixel 'textures' to go with them, have the real textures in a common folder, and then specify the actual texture paths in the config file.  Is it necessary to do this, though?  Is there much demand for being able to delete the replacement models?  I've found a couple of mods that link to VSR models and textures in their current locations (not huge ones, but enough that I'd rather not shuffle things and break compatibility).

Yup.. thats one way to do it, and probably the quickest, simplest.

Well, Ven's is a LARGE pack... anyway to optimise folder/file size is welcome... RAM usage is not necessarily equal to folder/filesize in GameData, but trimming things down in folder/filesize *should* equate to *less* RAM usage... leading to *some* amount of performance increase in the game.
It may not be an issue for the majority of users who may have Ven's as their only mod, or those who have high-end modern computers... but when you consider there *is* still a good percentage of KSP players who like to use *many* mods with Ven's, and/or are relgated to computers that that are more than a few years old, or laptops, *any* decrease in RAM usage and increase in performance that can be eeked out is very welcome.

Maybe its just my OCD, but having unecessary, duplicate models/textures in *any* mod just bugs me (plus, I am both on a 7yr old computer, *and* its a laptop )

There does come a point in any long-lived mod, where improvements should be balanced against save-breaking. Sometimes you just gotta do it...
Not that *you* are doing it, but flat-out accepting things the way they are, and refusing improvement *just* to keep from breaking peoples saves, doesnt sit well with me.
Yes, things need to be well considered before taking the step to breaking saves.
That being said, if its a matter of other peoples mods relying on Ven's that is the major reason for not improving Ven's, IMHO, thats not enuff of a reason.
It should be up to the dependent mod to update in kind... OR, up to the community to update/fork/continue an inactive mod to reflect changes in the mod they are depending/relying upon. In this case, it seems anything like another mod depending on Ven's models/textures, might be easily fixed with MM patches, too, as an option.

So i wouldnt weigh worrying about what other mods due to peoples saves if Ven's changes up.
Steps to mitigate the issue, could be warnings in the OP, and discussion that this is heavily being considered, in the thread... Also communicating with devs of known mods that will be affected before implementation, to work things out before hand. Also, (maybe not in *this* case, but parts can also be "deprecated" for a release or two, after the save-breaking release. that gives people a chance to still use the new changes, but allow them to tie up any craft that are in use in their saves.)

This is all just IMHO, and its *your* mod now Kerbas_ad_astra, and it would be your final decision. I'm sure the community will be appreciative no matter how you decide to proceed.

As always, THANX for the work you've done/continue to do.
You've done a great job, and kept a great mod going, after its original dev decided to move on.

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

My main reason for not disentangling the two is laziness prioritization of development time.  I'm not interested in investing time into 'fixing' something that is transparent to most users, when I've got other parts that need attention to return to functioning properly.  I would very seriously consider a pull request if one were made, if for no other reason than respect for dedication and effort (by my count, there are sixty-four original parts whose models are in the VSR/Squad bin, thankfully none the other way), but it would only be accepted after a pretty long while, considering that one of the mods that refers to Ven's models is Realism Overhaul (I had thought they just used parts from this mod, but it also has parts of its own that refer to Ven's models).

 

[Lazro]

I've been wondering if anybody else is having the same problems that I've been having; namely with the 2.5 meter tanks, some of the size adapters, and some other miscellaneous parts. A picture of the affected parts is here:

• All Rockomax fuel tanks
• All of the "splitting" adapters (e.g. 2.5m => 2x1.25m)
• The Rockomax 1.25m => 2.5m adapter
• The small, rounded nose cone

I'm running Making History, which might be the culprit, but I'd like to keep it installed.
Is there something I've missed in installation?

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

I'm starting to develop on the 1.6 branch of my repository, and so far I've fixed the Rockomax tanks (and the small boosters).  The rest are coming.

[Lazro]

Thank you! Eagerly awaiting the full release.

[Danilo Coelho]

8 hours ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

I'm starting to develop on the 1.6 branch of my repository, and so far I've fixed the Rockomax tanks (and the small boosters).  The rest are coming.

There is also a bug with the spark and poodle engines. 

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

19 minutes ago, Danilo Coelho said:

There is also a bug with the spark and poodle engines. 

Are you using the most recent update?  I think I've fixed both (new Spark uses Ven's model, new Poodle is being left alone).

[Danilo Coelho]

3 hours ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

Are you using the most recent update?  I think I've fixed both (new Spark uses Ven's model, new Poodle is being left alone).

I've been using the ksp 1.6.1. 

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

2 minutes ago, Danilo Coelho said:

I've been using the ksp 1.6.1. 

I mean the most recent update to Ven's Stock Revamp, from the green "Clone or download" button on the page I linked.

[Danilo Coelho]

9 hours ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

I mean the most recent update to Ven's Stock Revamp, from the green "Clone or download" button on the page I linked.

Yes, i've used this one. The Spark engine comes with the shroud and the Poodle isn't the classic stock's revamp engine.

 

[Tyko]

On 1/12/2019 at 2:03 PM, Kerbas_ad_astra said:

My main reason for not disentangling the two is laziness prioritization of development time.  I'm not interested in investing time into 'fixing' something that is transparent to most users, when I've got other parts that need attention to return to functioning properly.  I would very seriously consider a pull request if one were made, if for no other reason than respect for dedication and effort (by my count, there are sixty-four original parts whose models are in the VSR/Squad bin, thankfully none the other way), but it would only be accepted after a pretty long while, considering that one of the mods that refers to Ven's models is Realism Overhaul (I had thought they just used parts from this mod, but it also has parts of its own that refer to Ven's models).

 

As a test I tried deleting the PathPatches folder and /Squad/Data folder. That seems to have worked and retains all the textures for the VSR unique parts. Only question...if a texture isn't referenced by a config file does it still get loaded just because it's in the mod folder?

Edited January 15, 2019 by Tyko