[1.8-1.12] TextureReplacer 4.5.3 (8.2.2022)

[Whirligig Girl]

5 hours ago, Poodmund said:

Redistributing licensed images may not be the best thing to be doing here, @GregroxMun.

This is a modified version of the stock skybox and not quite the same as the original textures. I can't see the difference between something like this and distributing an exported map of Kerbin that has a slightly modified color map, or even modified versions of stock suits where the only major difference is recoloring bits of it. Both of those seem to be fine.

I was hesitant to release it because of this, but frankly I'm having trouble seeing the harm in it to anyone involved, and since there is no way to adjust the appearance of a skybox with white-balancing, tinting, changing saturation, or anything like that without editing the textures and re-releasing them, there's no way to get this effect except to release these textures in full.

In the spacedock page I made it clear that Squad/TakeTwo owns the original textures. Perhaps there's a better way to handle this? I'm open to any suggestions. In the mean time I'll remove the texture pack from spacedock.

I had also planned to do a version of this where I tilt the skybox to align north with Earth's north--I imagine that would qualify as enough of a transformation to be valid, both because the actual textures would be totally different, and because it would require a fair bit of work to get done.

Edited April 25, 2019 by GregroxMun

[Mr Dudu]

is there any working russian or soviet suit?

 

[gap]

Hi @shaw,  @HaArLiNsH, and all the KSP forum members,

I am a new KSP player, and after messing with some other mods,  I am now looking into face and uniform texture replacement.

While digging in the forum I came across Texture Replacer and Texture Replacer Replaced but how come, despite its name, the latter seems lesser updated than the former? I am probably posing a silly question, but what's the difference between the two plugins, and which one would you recommend with the last KSP version?

I know they are two different mods but their names seem to suggest a direct genealogy, thence my confusion... 

[shaw]

10 hours ago, gap said:

Hi @shaw,  @HaArLiNsH, and all the KSP forum members,

I am a new KSP player, and after messing with some other mods,  I am now looking into face and uniform texture replacement.

While digging in the forum I came across Texture Replacer and Texture Replacer Replaced but how come, despite its name, the latter seems lesser updated than the former? I am probably posing a silly question, but what's the difference between the two plugins, and which one would you recommend with the last KSP version?

I know they are two different mods but their names seem to suggest a direct genealogy, thence my confusion... 

I used to be (almost) inactive for a few years (I almost didn't play KSP any more, I only checked forum from time to time, so I also lost interest in updating TextureReplacer). First, @RangeMachine and then @HaArLiNsH continued TextureReplaced development. I started playing KSP again occasionally about a year ago and I wasn't happy with the direction where TRR has gone. I was looking to simplify TR, to throw away redundant features or features nobody uses, as the code was already messy enough -- full of workarounds for bugs and inconsistencies in stock Kerbal models, handling of various special cases etc. TRR has even significantly increased complexity of the mod. During my absence, I was working on a new TR version, which I certainly preferred over TRR, and later released it as TR 3.0. This, of cause, caused some confusion and @HaArLiNsH decided there's no point in maintaining two competing and incompatible forks of TR and ceased development of his TRR.

[gap]

9 hours ago, shaw said:

I used to be (almost) inactive for a few years (I almost didn't play KSP any more, I only checked forum from time to time, so I also lost interest in updating TextureReplacer). First, @RangeMachine and then @HaArLiNsH continued TextureReplaced development. I started playing KSP again occasionally about a year ago and I wasn't happy with the direction where TRR has gone. I was looking to simplify TR, to throw away redundant features or features nobody uses, as the code was already messy enough -- full of workarounds for bugs and inconsistencies in stock Kerbal models, handling of various special cases etc. TRR has even significantly increased complexity of the mod. During my absence, I was working on a new TR version, which I certainly preferred over TRR, and later released it as TR 3.0. This, of cause, caused some confusion and @HaArLiNsH decided there's no point in maintaining two competing and incompatible forks of TR and ceased development of his TRR.

Thank you very much shaw, your answer makes perfect sense to me and it solves all my doubts!

I have two last questions if you don't mind:

I wanted to convert some skin packs made for TRR so to be able using them in TR, but I have noticed that head and suit textures made for the two mods look quite different. Is this because they patch the game in different ways, or because the UV mapping of Squads's kerbal models has changed since KSP v1.3.1 (the last one officially supported by TRR)?

Whatever is the answer to the question above, are there any templates that I can use for manually rearranging TRR textures so to make them to fit the TR texture layout?

 

[shaw]

UV layout never changed. Only directory hierarchy is different (TR < 3..0, TR >= 3.0 and TRR have each different directory layout and naming for head textures). Maybe you compared female textures? In KSP before 1.0 there were no females, so males were retextured to females, female head textures were made to map on male models. Later, either you needed new female textures that mapped to the new female models or enabled "legacyFemales" option that converted all females into males (it remembered sex in TR settings, so it was reversible). That way you could still use old texture packs. I removed "legacyFemales" option somewhere in 3.x. The female heads included in recent versions of TR were originally made by @Sylith for male models, but I re-stretched them to fit on the female models.

[gap]

On 5/4/2019 at 12:41 PM, shaw said:

UV layout never changed. Only directory hierarchy is different (TR < 3..0, TR >= 3.0 and TRR have each different directory layout and naming for head textures). Maybe you compared female textures? In KSP before 1.0 there were no females, so males were retextured to females, female head textures were made to map on male models. Later, either you needed new female textures that mapped to the new female models or enabled "legacyFemales" option that converted all females into males (it remembered sex in TR settings, so it was reversible). That way you could still use old texture packs. I removed "legacyFemales" option somewhere in 3.x. The female heads included in recent versions of TR were originally made by @Sylith for male models, but I re-stretched them to fit on the female models.

Thank you shaw. I have had a closer look into the head skins of several old and new texture packs, and what you have said obviously applies to them. What was confusing for me is that some textures packs have their textures flipped vertically (like TR's standard textures) while the textures of some other packs are not, but I think this inconsistency has nothing to do with a change of UV mapping method between TR and TRR...

[shaw]

1 hour ago, gap said:

Thank you shaw. I have had a closer look into the head skins of several old and new texture packs, and what you have said obviously applies to them. What was confusing for me is that some textures packs have their textures flipped vertically (like TR's standard textures) while the textures of some other packs are not, but I think this inconsistency has nothing to do with a change of UV mapping method between TR and TRR...

The "inconsistency" probably comes from different texture formats (PNG/JPEG vs. DDS).

[gap]

5 minutes ago, shaw said:

The "inconsistency" probably comes from different texture formats (PNG/JPEG vs. DDS).

No, it is not about formats. Some textures are just flipped upside down, which BTW seems to be the correct orientation for TR + the latest version of KSP, but some other textures (from other texture packs) are not, and they look wrong in game. The same goes for space suit textures as well as kerbonaut head skins 

Edited May 7, 2019 by gap

[gap]

On 5/7/2019 at 7:03 PM, shaw said:

The "inconsistency" probably comes from different texture formats (PNG/JPEG vs. DDS).

Wait, do you mean that KSP (unity) reads dds textures upside down, so they need to be flipped in order to look okay in game?

[RangeMachine]

4 hours ago, gap said:

Wait, do you mean that KSP (unity) reads dds textures upside down, so they need to be flipped in order to look okay in game?

Yes, all formats except DDS loaded straight normally and DDS loaded upside down

[gap]

On 5/9/2019 at 5:32 AM, RangeMachine said:

Yes, all formats except DDS loaded straight normally and DDS loaded upside down

Thank you!

[Galenmacil]

Just adding my thoughts on the subject here: PNG, BMP or TGA bitmap images needs to be flipped vertically before getting converted to any "Direct Draw Surface" (DDS) format. Usually, image processing programs like GIMP or PhotoShop do this internally. However, command line programs like CRUNCH or NVCompress don't so this is the responsibility of the user.

When viewed in Windows 10 as a thumbnail in a folder, DDS will appear upside-down. This is normal and a good way to know if the textures is correctly converted to DDS.

Also, KSP really is using two types of DDS format: DXT1 and DXT5.

What is the difference?

DXT1 = Texture with no alpha channel encoded as RGB at 8 bit per channel.

DXT5 = Texture with an alpha channel (i.e. Transparency, or some normal map) encoded as RGBA at 8 bit per channel.

DXT5 format generate bigger files, obviously, so it is only recommended to use it when necessary.

Edited May 12, 2019 by Galenmacil

[Mr.DingALing]

Don't know if its cause of TextureReplacer. Anybody can help? https://imgur.com/a/kfxIXyH

[gap]

On 5/12/2019 at 8:19 PM, Galenmacil said:

Just adding my thoughts on the subject here: PNG, BMP or TGA bitmap images needs to be flipped vertically before getting converted to any "Direct Draw Surface" (DDS) format. Usually, image processing programs like GIMP or PhotoShop do this internally. However, command line programs like CRUNCH or NVCompress don't so this is the responsibility of the user.

When viewed in Windows 10 as a thumbnail in a folder, DDS will appear upside-down. This is normal and a good way to know if the textures is correctly converted to DDS.

I have Photoshop installed on my PC and a plugin adding to Windows explorer the the capability of previewing dds files as thumbnails (this feature is not native to Window 8, i.e. my current OS).
All the skin textures included in TextureReplacer are in dds format, and they look flipped vertically both in explorer and in Photoshop. Skin textures included in other texture packs are in mixed formats; non-dds ones are not flipped but, on converting them to the dds format, Photoshop doesn't flip them automatically.  I need to do that manually if I want them to look upside down in explorer and right in game.

It is a pain in the afterburner doing that for many textures, but I think it is worth it, if that can make the game to load those textures faster

 

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by gap

[COL.R.Neville]

 trying to get my rt reflections going on the visors again they had been working fine. 

long story short it only seems to work with d3d. 

everything worked before with glcore.

i usually dont use d3d11 because it leaves horrible ghosting on my monitor. 

so if anyone is having problems just trying using the -force-d3d11 switch. 

also the seeing the eva parachute thru the eva kerbal head suit helmet doesnt happen on d3d12 and rt reflections work as well.

Edited May 17, 2019 by COL.R.Neville

[Stone Blue]

I dont know if a source for the new, KSP 1.4.0+ Kerbal EVA model hierarchy may already be buried in the thread somewhere, but I thought I would post a compilation I was able to pull thanx to @shaw 's help...

Shaw, feel free to copy this list to your pastebin where the old model list is linked in the OP.... or add a link to mine...

Thanx again for the help in compiling the list.
 

 

[JinxerH]

Is there any way to get a fork of this mod that just adds the helmet visor reflections? I know that 1.6 adds dull reflections, but I'm looking for real-time high quality reflections. Thanks

[Bombaatu]

Interesting bug - if you enable the suit from Breaking Ground, your Kerbal will no longer have the custom head you set up for them. 

[Enceos]

Where can I get a heads pack with the heads from this picture?

Edited May 31, 2019 by Enceos

[RocketsRUs]

Hi Shaw - Just a bit confused right now - are you waiting on some correction by the makers of KSP for an issue before updating this for 1.7.1?  I am really fond of an old suit texture (the KSP version of the Krechet 94 by MrRedBull back in the day) and it just doesn't map right in the 1.7.1 with the latest version I can find of TextureReplacer.   Any thoughts or advice?  I really cannot bear the look of default anymore : /

[shaw]

On 5/14/2019 at 2:24 PM, Mr.DingALing said:

Don't know if its cause of TextureReplacer. Anybody can help? https://imgur.com/a/kfxIXyH

I guess this is the same issue described in the following post?

On 5/17/2019 at 2:47 AM, COL.R.Neville said:

 trying to get my rt reflections going on the visors again they had been working fine. 

long story short it only seems to work with d3d. 

everything worked before with glcore.

i usually dont use d3d11 because it leaves horrible ghosting on my monitor. 

so if anyone is having problems just trying using the -force-d3d11 switch. 

also the seeing the eva parachute thru the eva kerbal head suit helmet doesnt happen on d3d12 and rt reflections work as well.

I guess the problem isn't in the shader code, since it works fine on Linux and probably macOS which both use OpenGL. There used to be some problems when running TR with OpenGL on Windows some years ago because only Direct3D shaders were build for Windows. But back then there was completely different way how shaders were build. So, I guess OpenGL Core Profile shaders are not built into Windows assets. Last time I was building shader assets I didn't find any option to manually set which variants to build for each platform, so I'm not sure how to fix this.

On 5/19/2019 at 10:39 PM, JinxerH said:

Is there any way to get a fork of this mod that just adds the helmet visor reflections? I know that 1.6 adds dull reflections, but I'm looking for real-time high quality reflections. Thanks

No. Too much work and duplicated maintenance ... unless you do it yourself.

On 5/30/2019 at 10:25 PM, Bombaatu said:

Interesting bug - if you enable the suit from Breaking Ground, your Kerbal will no longer have the custom head you set up for them. 

Yeah, new models and the TR module that replaces EVA textures is not bound to them. I'll fix this once I buy that DLC.

On 5/31/2019 at 6:52 PM, Enceos said:

Where can I get a heads pack with the heads from this picture?

It's already included in TR, at least a newer version (more skin tones, more hair colours and fixed texture mappings for female models that were added in KSP 1.0). You can get GIMP XCF file that includes components of these textures in separate layers and can make your own head variants: https://github.com/ducakar/TextureReplacer-pack.

On 6/5/2019 at 3:24 PM, RocketsRUs said:

Hi Shaw - Just a bit confused right now - are you waiting on some correction by the makers of KSP for an issue before updating this for 1.7.1?  I am really fond of an old suit texture (the KSP version of the Krechet 94 by MrRedBull back in the day) and it just doesn't map right in the 1.7.1 with the latest version I can find of TextureReplacer.   Any thoughts or advice?  I really cannot bear the look of default anymore : /

When Squad created new suits in 1.6, texture mappings of the default (non-vintage) suit changed, so the old suits work don't work any more ...

[RocketsRUs]

Is there any resource I might use to figure out the mappings and convert you would advise?  Maybe I am looking in the wrong places, but there seems to be dearth of suit skin packs now....

[shaw]

15 hours ago, RocketsRUs said:

Is there any resource I might use to figure out the mappings and convert you would advise?  Maybe I am looking in the wrong places, but there seems to be dearth of suit skin packs now....

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lwtzqv484r57j64/builtin-suits.zip?dl=0

[RocketsRUs]

On 6/10/2019 at 2:13 AM, shaw said:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lwtzqv484r57j64/builtin-suits.zip?dl=0

Bless you my son.... I considered the built-in ones, but am not familiar enough with the directory layouts to know where to find them!

 

Curious, were they changed because the models changed?  

Edited June 11, 2019 by RocketsRUs