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

[Tellion]

Oh I meant that would it be modified to have the generator module instead of the alternator similar to the poodle (using 1.6B atm -was there any changes?)? Currently it looks like it is still an alternator module that generate electricity. If that is not in the plan, I will try to get my hand on it and poke around the .cfg.

I am quite sure my LV-Ns have a generator module with an output of 1.5EC/s... i thought it was added by this mod

Absolutely magnificent work btw Ven, it is stunning!

[RainDreamer]

I am quite sure my LV-Ns have a generator module with an output of 1.5EC/s... i thought it was added by this mod

Really? It doesn't show that for me:

Also, I don't think I see the antenna that works as a landing leg as advertised on the OP.

I downloaded from curse btw, should I have downloaded it from Github? Is the curse version outdated?

Also, what is the partname for the Poodle engine? Is it PoodleNTR? Trying to write an MM config for it to use liquid hydrogen from Near Future. Edit - Yup, got that one to use liquid hydrogen now.

Edited January 4, 2015 by RainDreamer

[Sage]

All criticisms, no matter how they are worded, are valid. However, it is up to the one being criticized to determine a way in which to use that criticism constructively, and it may or may not be in the way that the criticizer originally intended.

Anyways Preview Time:

http://imgur.com/a/k3Znu

Heavy duty RCS blocks! nice work

I'm not too happy about the integrated heatshield in the mk1-2 pod, because it may limit some design were the heatshield is jettisoned or not needed. I think it would have been better to have a flat ended pod that could fit flawlessy on 2m parts, while keeping the curved shield as separate part and give the fairing to that. But probably it's already too late to ask for this since it's probably too time wasting to split the model after UV unwrap and texturing.

[Tellion]

Really? It doesn't show that for me.

A closer look reveals that it might be Realfuels and stockalike engine configs. Those two also add a U235Rods resource to the LV-N that gets consumed *very* slowly by engine and generator.

[RainDreamer]

A closer look reveals that it might be Realfuels and stockalike engine configs. Those two also add a U235Rods resource to the LV-N that gets consumed *very* slowly by engine and generator.

Ah. I guess time for me to poke around the configs then...hope nothing blows up.

Edit: - Nothing blew up, but nothing changed either...wonder where I went wrong...

Edit2: ok, instead of writing a separate MM config target at the same part, I modified Ven's MM config by copy + paste parts of the code from the tiny poodle... it works, but now I wonder...

@Ven:

In this part where you define modules for the nuclear poodle, you seem to remove the alternator module for some reason:

@MODULE[ModuleEngines] {        @minThrust = 0
        @maxThrust = 8
        @fxOffset = 0, 0, 0.2
        !atmosphereCurve {}
        atmosphereCurve {
            key = 0 625
            key = 1 200
        }
    }
    !MODULE[ModuleJettison] {}
    !MODULE[ModuleGimbal] {}
    !MODULE[ModuleAlternator] {} // <- Here. Shouldn't it be MODULE {name= ModuleAlternator } to add a new module?

    @MODULE[ModuleJettison] {
        @jettisonName = fairing
        @bottomNodeName = bottom
        @isFairing = True
        @jettisonDirection = 0 0 1
    }
    @MODULE[ModuleAnimateHeat]
    {
        @ThermalAnim = PoodleHeat
    }
    MODULE {
        name = ModuleGenerator
        isAlwaysActive = true
        OUTPUT_RESOURCE
        {
            name = ElectricCharge
            rate = 0.5
        }
    }
    @MODULE[ModuleAlternator] {  //<- This has nothing to target at.
        @RESOURCE[ElectricCharge]
        {
            @rate = -0.24
        }
    }
    @RESOURCE[ElectricCharge] {
        %amount = 0
        %maxAmount = 0
        %isTweakable = false
        %hideFlow = true
    }

I ran a test and noticed that the engine doesn't drain any electricity at all while running, full energy generation the whole time. Wonder if this is just me downloading an outdated version. Or maybe I am totally misunderstanding what that piece of code is supposed to do.

Edit3: And lesson learned - poking around the config file cause some tanks to go missing... I am still a total noob at this, but this is learning experience. Now to figure how to fix this. Probably some syntax errors.

Edit4: Knew it, a missing {... Feels like my high school programming class again. I am too old for this. j/k XD

Edited January 4, 2015 by RainDreamer

[Bomoo]

That is one lovely aerospike remodel.

[mjones1052]

Anyone have any issues with this and tweakscale? When I put a radial decoupler, like the 38k, and then try to put a T200/400/etc tank on it it sits off of the decoupler. Also, if I try to put either of the LV909 engines on that T200/400/etc tank it sits off the bottom a good bit. I will upload some shots, but wanted to see if anyone else has these issues.

Edited January 4, 2015 by mjones1052

[somnambulist]

Anyways Preview Time:

The decouplers ar a huge improvement, but I'm not entirely sold on the flat texture for the hecs and octo probe cores. I personally like the stock crinkled mylar look; a cleaned up Ven-ized version with TextureReplacer reflections would look very cool.

Also iIs the heat shield on the Mk 1-2 pod part of the mesh or a separate part?

[burz21]

How exactly would I go about removing the fairings? For some reason they don't decouple for me and I use Procedural Fairings anyway. I looked through the ModuleManager config and only found this

Sorry to repeat my post but I think it may have been buried by the argument above and missed. I really enjoy the new textures and models but they are unusable for me at the moment due to the fairings . I would appreciate any help

[Sage]

Sorry to repeat my post but I think it may have been buried by the argument above and missed. I really enjoy the new textures and models but they are unusable for me at the moment due to the fairings . I would appreciate any help

The only real solution is to use tweakable everything, specifically the fairing module. Deleting the module fairing inside the PART won't work because the model will show up regardless. Another fix could be done by Ven itself, by shipping fairings as a separate .mu and weld it to the engine with the MODEL node system, kinda like KW rocketry does it. So anyone who wouldn't want it could just cancel the associated MODEL node and the fairing module to get rid of them. Considering that engine and fairing should already be separate models inside the current .mu file, and they don't even share the texture file, that could be even not too hard to do.

[ultraviolet150]

I think I found a bug with the inline docking port. If I use the inline docking port and attach any other docking port of the same size (which is open if it has a shutter) anywhere on the vessel, I get spams of null ref errors at launch. I did a little digging and I think its due to the fact that the inline docking port is missing the node transform with the name "dockingNode". I also noticed that if only the inline docking port is attached to a vessel and another docking port of the same size comes within around 200m of the inline port, the null ref errors start. If the stock inline docking port is used, the above does not happen.

The easiest way to recreate this issue is to build a vessel like the one in the screen shot and launch it.

This is an amazing addition to KSP and wish many of these parts were stock! Ven, any chance that this could be fixed? Cheers!

Edit:

I found this thread dealing with the issue:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/48668-Docking-ring

Edited January 5, 2015 by ultraviolet150

[Enceos]

Hello Ven, does this mod support latest reflections from Texture Replacer?

[djnattyd]

I'm getting some weirdness going on with the LV-T30, LV-T45 and decouplers.

If I try to attach a decoupler to either of those engines, the fairing shows up but the decoupler doesn't attach.

I can drag the decoupler around the VAB scene and it doesn't affect the engine.

If I delete the decoupler, the engine acts as though it has nothing attached and the fairing disappears and then KSP crashes to desktop.

If I attach the decoupler (and have the above mentioned issue) and then delete the engine, the decoupler goes with it and then KSP crashes to desktop.

This happens ONLY with the T30 & T45, other engines whether from stock revamp or a different mod work fine and it doesn't matter whether I use stock revamp decouplers or different mod ones.

[ZobrAA]

Hi Ven, hi all!

Despite the fact that this mod is simply amazing, I still would like to change some things. In particular, I play with the SDHI mod, Clamp-O-Tron Parachute version of which does not fit very well with the Ven's model of docking port...

Can anyone give a hint of some sort of MM-code for revert stock docking port model in SDHI_ParaDock_1_ClampOTron?

Edited January 6, 2015 by ZobrAA

[Thesonicgalaxy]

All criticisms, no matter how they are worded, are valid. However, it is up to the one being criticized to determine a way in which to use that criticism constructively, and it may or may not be in the way that the criticizer originally intended.

Anyways Preview Time:

http://imgur.com/a/k3Znu

Ooooh lovin' dat mercury look.

[mecki]

Is there also a script to reverse the renaming of Squads parts?

[CaptainKipard]

Ven what "Shininess" setting are you using in your materials. That pod above looks like the slider is all the way to the left.

[Whirligig Girl]

Hi Ven, hi all!

Despite the fact that this mod is simply amazing, I still would like to change some things. In particular, I play with the SDHI mod, Clamp-O-Tron Parachute version of which does not fit very well with the Ven's model of docking port...

http://imgur.com/KOPY2vk.jpg

Can anyone give a hint of some sort of MM-code for revert stock docking port model in SDHI_ParaDock_1_ClampOTron?

Just comment out the docking port in the MM config.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not liking the fact that the 1.25m Decoupler no longer has an arrow. I have no idea where to place it now.

- - - Updated - - -

Honestly I think that new probe-size rockomax engine would do better being resized as a 1.25m or 2.5m rocket engine. I'm not entirely sure what purpose the Rockomax 105-7P is supposed to serve. Here's some stats I propose.

1.25m version (Potentially with a texture reskin, else make it a rockomax brand engine) LV-T70 Dual Nozzle Rocket Engine. Thrust 300 kN, Isp 310-340. An advanced high thrust motor unlocked with the Mainsail.

(Alternately Rockomax "Spinnaker" Liquid Fueled Engine)

2.5m version: Rockomax "Headsail" Liquid Fueled Engine. Thrust 630 kN, Isp 340-368. A simple, relatively low thrust lifter engine with decent effeciency unlocked with the skipper.

Of course, either way it looks good. I just don't think there are any dual-engine space probe engines. Or is this engine supposed to be for 0.625m lifters? I forgot you could do that with the new "Oscar" fuel tanks.

[RainDreamer]

I'm not liking the fact that the 1.25m Decoupler no longer has an arrow. I have no idea where to place it now.

Pretty sure the 1.25 decoupler-looking part is the reaction wheel.

[Whirligig Girl]

Pretty sure the 1.25 decoupler-looking part is the reaction wheel.

No, there's another one there, on the last page, there's one that's definitely a decoupler.

I know my ASAS/ReactionWheel modules from my Decouplers, dammit.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there also a script to reverse the renaming of Squads parts?

It's all in the Module Manager config file. Just edit whatever you want in there.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, Ven, are the decouplers finally hollow instead of having a magical and hyperannoying force field blocking them?

[bac9]

Also, Ven, are the decouplers finally hollow instead of having a magical and hyperannoying force field blocking them?

No and they won't be on any hollow object, that's just how collisions work. You can only use convex shapes for collisions, so the only way to make decoupler rings pass-through is to use about a dozen of rectangular colliders arranged like a donut. Using that many colliders is very bad performance-wise, so unless you have a pressing need to allow movement within a hollow area (like for a cargo bay part), sticking with a single cylindrical collider is the most reasonable. Yes, kerbals can't fall through a part like that, but this is negligible in comparison with performance cost of an alternative.

Edited January 6, 2015 by bac9

[temporalExile]

A made an MM patch that adds a toroidal tank's worth of fuel to the LV909a, but not the B. Here it is if anyone are interested.

Put this anywhere

@PART[liquidEngine3]
{
RESOURCE
{
 name = LiquidFuel
 amount = 10
 maxAmount = 10
}
RESOURCE
{
 name = Oxidizer
 amount = 12.2
 maxAmount = 12.2
}
}

Put this anywhere, but make sure that the first letter of what you name it is after V in the alphabet

@PART[VenLV909b]
{
!RESOURCE[LiquidFuel] {}
!RESOURCE[Oxidizer] {}
}

[Captain Planet]

Hey Ven, really love your mod. This is a weird post with mixed things so bear with me.

The triangular 1x1 structural panel has a mass of 2 tons, way more than the other structural panels. Easy fix.

The new update looks cool, but I have some constructive criticism regarding the new 3-man capsule.

- It looks chubby to me. Has its dimensions changed other than the addition of the heatshield? If not, ignore this.

- I think the heatshield is a good idea, but I think the fairing being created underneath it is a mistake. I think it should work the way that the black 1-man capsule works now, where it creates no fairing and there is a small gap (which can be fixed with offset tool or ignored based on the player's whims).

- In the pictures you posted it seems slightly white-washed. I think a couple more pieces of greebling or color would really help it pop the way the current model does.

Also: Is there an easy way to let me have both your new docking ports and the original models simultaneously?

(once again thanks for your excellent work on this pack)

[Whirligig Girl]

No and they won't be on any hollow object, that's just how collisions work. You can only use convex shapes for collisions, so the only way to make decoupler rings pass-through is to use about a dozen of rectangular colliders arranged like a donut. Using that many colliders is very bad performance-wise, so unless you have a pressing need to allow movement within a hollow area (like for a cargo bay part), sticking with a single cylindrical collider is the most reasonable. Yes, kerbals can't fall through a part like that, but this is negligible in comparison with performance cost of an alternative.

I did not know this. Why can colliders not be made into any shape?

[blowfish]

I did not know this. Why can colliders not be made into any shape?

Because collision physics is incredibly compute-intensive. If you really need a hollow part the way it's typically done in KSP is to create multiple colliders which form a ring (that's how cargo bays are done), but for something like a decoupler which is rarely going to be used that way it's more resource-intensive than it's worth.