Kickasskyle

As Winston said, we've fixed pretty much most of the issues. Now I've got to get 3 hours sleep before I go get a plane and go on holiday for a week, Winston will be watching so if anything goes horrifically wrong he'll be around. For the FAR users who want to use the old fairings, they're in the extras folder. There were quite a few tweaks to the thermal stuff as well, such as making decouplers hardly conductive to stop mass loads of heat transferring between stages etc. Feedback is always appreciated. Finally, big thanks to Nathan Kell for making the plugin that allowed us to make emissives work again. Here's the relevant changelog: Updated to 2.7 - 1.02 compatibility update. - Rebalanced ISPs to account for new aerodynamics. - Rebalanced and changed thermal properties to account for the new system. - Converted the majority of textures to .dds producing an overall ram saving of about 25%. - Updated engines with the latest FX modules. - Fixed node issues brought on by v1.0 update. - Old FAR compatible fairings moved to extras folder. - New procedural fairings added until a better alternative is utilised. - Parts in defunct research nodes have been moved to the next best alternative. - Subassemblies split into legacy (for old FAR compatible fairings) and default (for the new default procedural fairings). - Misc Minor bugfixes.

Turns out I'm running into some problems with unresolvable seams. The worst problem is probably the fact that I can't match the colour palettes at all, for some reason the p.fairing textures come out ridiculously darker, even a a 100% white texture will come out looking grey due to what I'd assume are lighting issues. Then there's also no specular map support, and I can't figure a way of changing the glossiness, if it's even an option. I wouldn't mind giving it a shot, but we're not the most plug-in oriented mod so I honestly wouldn't know where to start.

I think I've come up with a cheeki way to mitigate the horrible texture warpage on the inner faces. The top faces are a total loss though, because squad. So tomorrow I'll see what I can come up with for texturing the stuff.

Like I said, I'd play around with it. It's just stock fairing module has problems with issues like texture warping all over (note the strip of super squashed texture) .

I'm going to keep them around for that reason. I'll probably bump them into the extras folder. It surprised me that squads execution of procedural fairings turned out to be worse than original community made one. But regardless I'm going to have a mess around with the stock fairing system and see if I can do anything meaningful with it. It probably wont look that pretty, considering the massive abhorrent texture tile shredding that I noticed during use. The ideal fairing system (for me) is pretty much going to be what Sumghai is planning to do anyway, procedural fairings that limit you to reasonable proportions.

I was aware of the change and was going to mess about with it.

I'm going to take a look at all the balance things once my exams end, but until then you'll have to sit tight. Should be around the 12th or so next month.

Download the file here on dropbox Funnily enough I do actually have a set of stock "balance" numbers hidden in the dark depths of a forbidden excel spreadsheet tab. Did you use any performance metrics for the engines when you came up with your numbers or did you just use straight edit the stats? Sorry for the sparse replies all around guys and gals. I'm still knee deep in various levels of work and pretty much have been over the entirety of the Christmas holiday. Although I'm fairly sure I'll get a nice chunk of free time in a couple of weeks, so I'll use that to take a look over some things that have been needing to be touched.

Has anyone benchmarked and determined the rough gains you get by using .dds in ksp with the previously mentioned loaders? If it's reasonable I might think about converting all the textures on my end and doing some release magic when I get some time (dissertations and coursework up the yazoo n all that).

1. Yeah, if you reversed it they'd collapse inwards, we could probably fix it to be "positive" if we dicked around. But "if it ain't broke" and all that. 2. It's just there for the sake of squeezing out as much height as possible if you have a relatively \ / conical 'rear end' to your fairing load.

http://puu.sh/d40Lb/c358723ac6.rar The specular maps are contained within the alpha channel of the main texture. I can't remember how procedural handles textures though. Stuff in the KW folder is generally finally exported as .mbm though, which is why you find anything, you can convert it but without some superPNG tweaking it'd look half transparent.

I'm assuming you're not using version "v2.6d2". I redid the IPR config files after forgetting to commit them on the previous release. The majority of the engines should now be at scale 1,1,1 sans a few outliers. I'll be honest, I'm not the best person to do this. I Haven't dabbled enough with the cfg workings of FAR to know how to works, but I'm sure someone else in this thread has an idea. Right, guys?

v2.6d2 should be coming very soon, it fixes the issues with the instant power response configs and the launch clamp sounds. If you don't use either of those, it shouldn't be an issue.

I just thought about it now, and I may have accidentally overlooked changing the scaling on the instant power response configs, I'll look into it when I get back home later. But I think that might be it.

V2.6d has been released! see OP for DL's. This version mainly fixes the scale issues and changes some of the entry costs, but there are also a few other minor fixes that I've applied. I decided to delay implementing any soundscape changes and contracts stuff because it needed more testing than I was able to put in. I'll probably wrap them all up in their own mini update to be put out in the near future. A word on entry costs. I came up with (what I thought was) a nice little pricing solution for engines/solids, the jist of it is the entry cost is that it's the combination of the 'tech level (1-9)' and the cost of the part itself (when available). I thought that was a good way of incorporating both the start up costs associated with producing & getting stuff setup initially and sort of a visible tech progression. Some of the bigger engines get a bit pricey to unlock, but what's career mode without goals and things to aim for. A counter to those prices is that fact that fuel part unlocks are half the cost of the actual part mainly because you wouldn't be paying for the inclusive fuel in your entry costs! At least that's how I see it. Anyway we'll see how that goes down, have fun I'm off to bed.