Caspian Sea Monster

Thanks, works like a charm now!

I'm having problem tangentially similar to the last post. I've got Vessel View RPM installed with KSI MFDs with black interface, all up-to-date. I can't seem to find any back/previous-menu button for VV. The 'back' button on the MFCD kicks me completely out of VV and into the MOD page (button E). Whatever menu or part I get to, I'm then stuck on unless I EVA to force VV to completely reset. On an unrelated note, I have a suggestion that will probably never get implemented due to complexity but I'll throw it out there anyway. Something that would help with IVA-only flights is if you were able to transfer resources (fuel et al) between storage parts. Something like, select resource transfer option -> select resource -> select first tank -> select second tank -> start/stop pumping. I say this after I was forced to go third-person to work around a fuel line I screwed up during design but didn't want to scrub my flight over.

You know what, don't worry about it. It gives me motivation to get off my butt and back into 3D modelin. I think I should just make I'm making a 1.25m to 0.625m nose adapter, sort of like the Mustang nose for the oblong fuselage, to mount the nose propeller and make it in the style of the Hawker Sea Fury, which does have a five-bladed prop. ETA: Work in progress. Just placeholder textures/materials for now. Forgive me if it looks like garbage; I've been using Blender for a grand total of four hours now, and it's been six or seven years since the last time I did any modeling.

What I am reminded of: Micro Machines Zi-9000 Assault Copter

Personally thus far I just haven't been installing the Firespitter airfoil surfaces, just the engines and fuselages and such. It sucks, but the importance of FAR wins out. I generally use the Procedural Dynamics wing, Taverio's Pizza control surfaces, and the B9 airbrake. ETA: Snjo, I haven't looked into it myself yet - been busy - but is there a way to mod the .cfg file to get the 1.25m v5.2 engine with the old model to have POV-blur, or is that dependent on the new model?

Hah! Yeah, they probably would. IRL though, the best piston engines for minimizing vibration are the boxer engines (horizontally opposed with two opposite pistons moving toward TDC/BDC at the same time, examples being the air-cooled Volkswagen Beetle or Porche 911 engines, and are commonly used on light aircraft in 4- or 6-cylinder configuration,) the inline-6 (which you saw a lot of on older aircraft; the de Havilland DH.88 Comet had these,) or the V-12. The Spitfire, Mustang (which uses almost the same engine as the Spitfire,) Lightning, Warhawk, King Cobra, Messerschmitt Bf 109, all of these had water-cooled V12 engines; look at any of them and you'll see six exhaust pipes sticking out either side of the engine fairing. Water-cooled engines are heavier and less reliable than air-cooled engines - a hole in the radiator is a lot worse than a couple broken cooling fins on a cylinder head - but they run much more efficiently and allow for a more streamlined fuselage/engine cowling. There was a big push in the years leading up to WWII to develop good water-cooled V-12 engines for fighter aircraft. In the end they were the exception to the norm because the efficiency just wasn't worth the weight and reliability trade-offs and most fighters continued carrying air-cooled radial engines, but the fighters that they powered were still pretty impressive, no doubt. ETA: Four-stroke radial piston engines always have an odd number of cylinders in each row/stack because the spark firing order wouldn't work out if there weren't. With every other piston firing as it goes 'round, the firing order (on a 9-cylinder engine) is 1-3-5-7-9-2-4-6-8 (watch the spark plugs in this video get highlighted red when they fire, that might explain it better than in words.) If it were eight cylinders, the firing order would be 1-3-5-7 and the even-numbered cylinders wouldn't fit into the order. Larger engines are made by stacking together multiple rows or radial 'disks', as though you stuck one 9-cylinder to the back of another to make an 18-cylinder engine. The B-17 had 9-cylinder engines, the Japanese A6M 'Zero' had a 14-cylinder engine, and most radial-powered US and British fighters had 18-cylinder engines. The largest radial engine ever produced in the US (there was a bigger one in Russia but I don't think it was ever mass-produced) had 28 cylinders in four rows. THE MORE YOU KNOW ===============☆...sorry, I have an insane compulsion to explain things in great detail.

Man, I disappear for a few months and someone nukes the forums. Anyway, daaaaang son. The current standard-bearer of seaplane floats? Functional MFDs? Snjo, you are amazing. I was reading a few pages back, your response to someone making an assertion that airplane engines shouldn't need air intakes... You might know this, I don't know if other people do - the large air scoop on the bottom of the Mustang is actually for the radiator (it's a water-cooled V-12 engine); the air intake for the supercharger is a much smaller opening directly under the propeller hub. The thing I think would be cool as an oblong fuselage nose, however, is to build a Curtiss Warhawk radiator cowling nose and make that an air intake. Again on that one, the actual supercharger intake is a separate opening above the prop hub, but even if you don't include that the Warhawk front clip looks coooool. I also gotta say though, the exhaust pipes on the current oblong front-end imply that it's V-8 powered, and that's just offensive; no self-respecting aerospace engineer would ever use such a badly balanced engine! I poke fun, but it's awesome work. I like the new radial engine model and the propeller POV-blur is actually kind of... relieving? The jitteriness of the propellers before always was setting off a framerate complaint in the back of my mind. One thing about the new model though, I'm sad the spinner cone is gone; it's more appropriate for the B-17 certainly, but the old style was good for air-cooled fighters kind of like the Hawker Sea Fury or the racing-modified F8F "Rare Bear". The trim preset tool is worth its virtual weight in gold. That and the info popup are now, as with FAR, something I consider mandatory to have. Joystick support still being broken in Unity, this actually makes aircraft worthwhile since I can land them more reliably and consistently now without things exploding. Twenty perfect landings in a row with this plane: Also more exploits with the seaplane floats and the airboat engine: 95m/s, give or take. That is a fast boat. Oh, one request on the seaplane floats: A longer straight section, like 3-4 times the length of the standard one, if possible. I try to keep my parts count as minimal as possible due to my PC not being all that powerful, and having to stack together ten float sections for something like that isn't helping. --Katemonster

It looks fruit-flavored.

As much as I'd love to, I'm not doing any modeling myself right now. It's not that I can't (I most certainly can,) I'm just not set up for it right now, software-wise, and I don't really want to be. I'm trying to keep the clutter down on my system* and right now I'm focused on a project that involves a whole ton of sprite-editing**, so about the only things installed on my PC right now are graphics editing programs. As for working on Kerbal, C7 gave me permission to repaint his space plane parts pack so that's on the things-to-do list. *OLD SYSTEM IS OLD: 2GHz Northwood P4, 768MB DDR1 RAM, 512MB AGP3 GeForce 6200, onboard USB1.1, 80GB PATA-133 drive. I have a ton of external storage space but the last time I tried a PCI USB2.0 card I got hit with some driver conflict and it would crash the system every time I tried to use it, so transferring things to-and-fro the external drives is about as fast and pleasant as self-dentistry. **Thousands upon thousands of frames looking something like this. Fun fact: out of that pack of 58 frames, Red Alert only actually used 8. The game had a huge amount of unimplemented content.

Oh come on, I’ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. Duh. >

Older than some here but not as old as others. On my 4th birthday, a major military action began, and a king died. How old am I?

Geez, have some patience! I have other adult responsibilities, I can't just sit around doing this all day long. Anyway they are all up now. Let me know if something doesn't work right.

I can kind of see that, kind of not. I don't know, it looks a shade too dark to me to be gold plated. It's an interesting thing really. C&C may have been the first (and possibly only?) RTS to actually try to make the unit colors not look like unit colors but like actual legitimate camo. The game was very much themed after the '91 Gulf War (what with the UN using desert camo and Abrams tanks and A-10s and Nod with Apache helicopters and a PASGT helmet on every head.) The yellow unit color for the GDI was definitely supposed to represent something like a desert tan or DCU desert camo pattern (which was legitimate enough in the African campaign missions but not so much in the European/Scandanavian missions) while the gray units for Nod were supposed to represent something like US Subdued Urban camo (which doesn't blend in anywhere that doesn't have smoke machines. Once upon a time, this was actually considered a good idea and yet is probably still a more legitimate idea than UCP.) In any case, C&C (and Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight) totally ruined team-play colors for me in every other game. It seems everyone universally defaults to red vs. blue, but in my mind it should and always will be red vs. gold. I considered overlaying a camo pattern on the skins (tiled, desaturated, opacity turned way down) and I may still do that later on, I don't know, for now I didn't feel like putting the extra work into that, plus it probably looks silly as hell on a spaceship. (Not that goldenrod doesn't.)

That's what I was thinking. I figured it was a stupid question but it's always better to ask and be right than to assume and be wrong. I'll put up the download links in a little while.

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?