• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1516 Excellent

About blackheart612

  • Rank
    Aerospace Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

4991 profile views
  1. I Could Use Some Tips for IVA

    No problem. You're right about the depth mask. Parts with no depth mask are transparent like that. It's a separate mesh as I said, yes. And that mesh should have a depth mask shader.
  2. I Could Use Some Tips for IVA

    There is no proper way to make an IVA, you can make it any way you like. And it looks great at the moment. You can hide non-glass parts of the IVA by having a depth mask cover in your IVA model. Just have a model like your exterior frame, even low poly is fine. Cover everything that is not glass, once exported, depth mask portions will not be transparent. Therefore, you'll only see "glass" parts. Depth mask is a shader, just like diffuse, specular, etc. Edit: Here's an example of depth mask showing glass portions only: --- Here's a recent EVA Airlock thread.
  3. Perhaps. But here, it's already a lot of fun. Especially with the amount of support for the content that I like to make, It's almost self-serving that people like it too.
  4. I always enjoy making content. If it could be my full time job, I'd take it. It's really fun, real life gets in the way sometimes is all.
  5. That, we shall see! Not for the next patch yet.
  6. To make or not to make 5th generation cockpits...
  7. @YoloT47 They should, but note that the OP RPM patch from the user is very outdated by now. There are no plans right now. Or even if I had, I'd not tell it yet because they are always subject to change. @DownHereInChile It's possible. Let's see which patch it falls in. @[INDO]dimas_1502 I'm very dissatisfied by the current state of the Gemini turboshafts. It's subject to change once I know how to change it. @MaverickSawyer Not sure if I removed something on the configs but I don't know much about its aerodynamic properties as of now. I'll check it when I got the time.
  8. @crazeek Get some momentum before taking off. Have an AoA of 10-20 most of the time. Also, make sure you're using the right engine. Early engines can't handle much weight. @SparkyFox Already requested and I've not denied interest of making it. Perhaps in the future.
  9. I just noticed your Airlock on the inspector. Set it to 1, 1, 1 on its scale. What you need to change is the collider size, not the size of the GameObject it is in. You can specify the radius and the height in a capsule, and the length, width, and height in a box.
  10. @DownHereInChile There are many ways to half an Mk2 Fuel Tank, could you specify how? @[INDO]dimas_1502 That's what we're trying to avoid @kcs123 I understand a fair, just enough amount in curves. I'm just too lazy to get the data. So the engines, instead of being based on the engines, are based on the plane it is on most of the time. Of course, stock KSP is limited but it's good enough when you can set altitude thrust multiplier (you can set at what altitude it flames out) or velocity thrust multiplier (you can set at what velocity it flames out) as well as altering how powerful it is depending on the altitude/velocity respectively. There's the idea of having an intake that's special for the piston engines which weaken then gets a kick when the "supercharger" kicks in but that would probably be exploited by having stock intakes anyway. So the engines just lose power at certain altitude then come back when supercharger is there. All in all, it's working alright right now, unless people have complaints, then I'll get to fixing it to the best of my abilities. @SVS Here's the complication: Somebody's bound to want one back. Previous users are going to want the old one back because of the new release. New release users who used it already would want the new one back if I change it. The thing is, there can only be one part name. If I change the part name, either of the two will get an unloadable incomplete craft because the part name has changed. Not to mention that the part name is specific to the current part, it would be confusing to change it to another to accomodate the old one. It is possible to revert it back, but being indecisive will get everybody confused. If you don't like it, that's my fault for the change and I'm sorry. I'll try and make a new cockpit which is similar to the old one to at least have a cockpit that can be used to replace it. The old cockpit had a few issues which are now fixed in the extended cockpit. Cramped spaces, bad IVA views, difficult to see props inside, props not fitting properly or as good as it is now. @Vladokapuh The mesh switch will simply change the exterior of the craft, the IVA is a different thing in KSP. This will make the exterior shorter but the interior be the longer one, clipping through the exterior. IVA view is a special config module and can't be mesh switched as it's not part of the model. Again, if this caused a lot of inconvenience, I didn't intend it and I apologize.
  11. [1.3.1] IVA missing

    Is this a unity log? You sure you're referencing to the correct GameData or that there are files in the GameData at all? Make sure part tools is looking at the correct GameData. Just a few checks though, as I'm windows.
  12. I've put up a basic guide on how to make landing gears: If you're confused and want to make wheels, you'll get some info with making landing gears. I already made a test rover wheel from my knowledge of landing gears.
  13. @MagicFireCaster Only the J-X4 Whiplash is capable of doing that due to its own special functions, of course. So nope, there are none, nor do I know any engine that might work like that other than the J-X4, or any comparable engines in real life. @[INDO]dimas_1502 Did I change the height of the Mk1 Viewer's Cockpit 1? I could change it no problem if I did. I do remember increasing the height of most cockpits though. So you could actually see with IVA with amazement! @i like pizza It's difficult to try and add WW1 parts without seeing them in space for some odd reason because people will just keep using it for anything. Still trying to find a way of balancing it. Because the result will be a very light parts pack which can go to space. I can always lower the heat tolerance but there are a lot of testing and other factors I'm thinking of.
  14. I use a box on mine. Doesn't really matter that much as far as I know. What I could best summarize is that Kerbals getting ejected means that your Airlock Collider is inside another Collider. So when a Kerbal spawns on the Airlock, it clips and launches. Speaking of Kerbal spawning on the Airlock, it needs to be big enough for a Kerbal to spawn in, that's when it's obstructed (If it's actually not obstructed that is). You can keep increasing the size until you can get the smallest size it can EVA (I can't pull up unity right now as I'm away). Why would you want the smallest size possible? Because the whole Collider makes you see the EVA when you hover over it, as well as determines the area where a Kerbal can press B to board. The bigger the collider, the bigger the area you can hover on or board in.
  15. @TK-313 The vectoring has been disabled @[INDO]dimas_1502 No reports of the same problem so far. Seems like another mod is interfering with the new IVA. Most likely an RPM patch. @Sebastiaz Glad you like it! @Vladokapuh It's been considered but the short version poses a problem in how it looks in IVA due to how small it is (as a two seater). I can technically make another cockpit to replace the old one but that would mess up the part names due to the new one and old one being used and replaced by people. You can change it yourself, I can walk you through if you're interested. That would make you need to do it every patch, though. So I apologize but it's a final decision with all things considered on my part.