Torminator

The only problems I've had is when using retrograde for landings, if I get a little too cautious and my Vspeed goes above zero, retrograde obviously flips around and MJ has a heart attack. Also, There's a difference between surface retro and orbital retro. I haven't had problems like you're describing though. Have you tried Sarbian's patch? In the meantime, the translatron works well for eliminating horizontal speed. Just set it to "Keep Vert" and check "Kill H/S". It will maintain whatever speed you enter as a vertical speed, and try to eliminate any horizontal drift.

Eh... 6GB is pushing it a bit. General rule of thumb is to give Windows at least 4GB on its own, so if Kerbal is taking up its 3.5GB chunk, that doesn't leave much for the OS. If you're interested, you can usually replace even Laptop RAM, though if you aren't planning to keep that one much longer it may not be worthwhile.

How much RAM do you have? KSP can only use ~3.5GB regardless of what any other process is using. Unless you only have 4GB total, you don't need to start slashing processes. If you do have 4GB total, buy more RAM! It's quite cheap these days.

You could be right. This forum's subdivisions don't always make sense to me. :\ I figured it fit because It pertained to... well, add-on development Specifically trying to figure out how to get them to "mirror" properly. And the countless other questions I'll undoubtedly run into once I get the mesh re-done. I'll edit the thread a bit to make things more clear...

What people are trying to do is reduce the memory footprint of Mapsat so that it can actually be used alongside other mods. I'd love to use Mapsat, but I'm not, because I'm already at the precipice of the memory limit, and can't really get rid of the mods that I use. Any optimization of a mod's memory usage is a good thing. Also, Ancient Gammoner IS doing it, and as far as I can tell, IS demonstrating that the memory usage can be reduced. He even mentioned that dynamically loading maps could cause a slowdown, but it could easily be cloaked within the SOI change loading. I'm not sure why you're being so defensive about this...

(Don't know why the thumbnail is so wonky. The video itself is higher quality. Promise.) So I got these working, and got some basic emissives and animations going. Problem is, you may notice that both engines "skew" in the same direction. Is there a way to set them so that they'll both skew inwards? I also need to get the orientation sorted out with nodes and surface attach and such, so that may resolve it, but I'm doubtful.

That is about the worst/most Jeb idea I've ever seen. Your model looks great, though. Love the shaders you used to render.

I understand. What is this Asymmetric joint strength bug, though? I have not heard of this, but it would explain some issues I've had. Reloading works sometimes, but has proven stubborn on this craft. I've also tried re-placing the first non-root part in the tree, as this has worked before, but again, no dice. The red marker is part of the RCS build aid plugin, and as far as I am aware, displays your center of mass with all fuel drained. The icons on the bottom are part of the part catalog plugin, which organizes your parts menu and does nice things like letting you scroll with the scroll wheel instead of clicking arrows over and over. If anyone's curious, I can upload the craft file. I just need to clean up the non-B9 mods first. To tell you the truth It's been so long since I've played without FAR that I can't say for certain, but I don't recall ever having this happen with stock, or at least, stock's mechanics never caused it to have an effect. For example, the re-stock pack uses .cfg edits to combine several stock models into a single new part.

I've had this happen when there are other parts that the opening shields collide with. It may also not work so well on large flat pieces, since the shields move out and down. Additionally, I notice bac9 uses the "Kinetech Animation Library" for animating the intakes with regards to atmospheric conditions. A quick googling resulted in a few videos posted by bac9/Taverius and nothing else of note.

This was my thought as well... I fully support everybody doing their own thing, but personally, I'm not a big fan of single-craft mods. Kind of takes away from the point of KSP in my eyes.

Glad to be of help

Art Pass? You mean to tell me that one of the best-looking mods in the game is getting even more really, really ridiculously good-looking? (That's two Zoolander quotes in a day. I need to cut back.) Keep up the good work. This is without a doubt the smoothest, best-integrated mod I've used thus far. Whenever I inevitably hit the memory limit, this and B9 are the two that are never even momentarily considered for pruning.

Quick question, since this gets most blender users, I find. Did you ctrl+A, "Apply Rotation"? If you rotate the mesh in object mode, that rotation is not actually applied until you hit ctrl+A and select rotation. Additionally, when you rotate in Unity, do the nodes and the model rotate, or does nothing happen?

Do we know yet what causes the off-center aerocenter on planes with wings that have been placed with symmetry? Again, I can say for sure that that except for the central fuselage and middle engine, every piece was placed using symmetry. Strutted the bejeezus out of the wings, launched, then made sure that no parts were being shielded by the cargo bays, and yes, the plane did roll subtly to the left as the blue dot in SPH would indicate. I find I can sometimes fix this by undoing/redoing, or by re-placing each part, but sometimes that just makes it worse.

It always makes me think of Fuji Heavy Industries, probably better known to most people as* Subaru. *Fuji Heavy Industries school for kids who want to make cars good, but probably do other stuff good too

That is very helpful, NavyFish. If the rep system was working, you would receive some!

Are you using Blender? Your smooth shading is a bit much. You can use an edge split modifier to reduce the "putty" look a bit. Additionally, marking certain edges as "Sharp" will prevent them from being smoothed.

I believe that is correct. I think Nvidia bought PhysX or something. Tiron: Yeah, as I've thought about it more, and reading people's responses, it does seem like the benefits would be very minor versus the trouble.

The "Terrain Scatter" option in settings will give you those rocks.

"Because a single, rigid, physical body behaves much different than a combination of them. Let's start with the obvious one: avionics. If you take a close look at some of KSPs airplanes, then you see that the wings are actually flexing, which has a quite significant impact on how this things flies. Of course, you could say: well, then let's only compress parts when entering space. But every joint is able to stretch and wiggle a little, and this might spin or tilt your ship. The more important question is: why would you do that, anyway? Because it enables you to build bigger ships, right? It's not a bug, it's a feature: you are not supposed to bring vehicles into orbit that are structurally unsound. It is part of the game to find a design that is not only rigid enough to not explode when launching, but which is controllable and reliable. Like it or not: the physics engine is currently the only thing that enforces rules in KSP somehow. Since you are neither tied by resources or part count, at least you are bound by rudimentary laws of nature." (quotes still don't work for me :| ) I wasn't speaking of eliminating structural considerations, but reducing the number of parts that KSP has to think about at any one moment to reduce lag. It won't work for planes, or other aerodynamically active vessels most likely, but for things like space stations, and other vessels that are not under any sort of acceleration, like I mentioned, it's a non-issue. If I'm trying to dock one station module to another, is there any need for the static module to be simulated when I'm still 500m away? There are no forces to act on it whatsoever. "As for why ships are multiple parts and not consolidated...can't have the joints break and bend if you're treating the joint as being unbreakable." I didn't say that the joint would be unbreakable. My suggestion was to establish thresholds of total vessel acceleration under which various parts will be approaching their breaking points. As this would likely be quite complex to accomplish, I mentioned the easier option of only consolidating vehicles that are not under acceleration or aerodynamic forces.

Orbitus: That was the purpose of having a dynamic integration/separation system. Each part is only individually simulated when it needs to be. In those cases, the vessel would not be consolidated because it was not in an inertial reference frame. To be clear, I meant that as a "I wonder if the devs could do this at some point down the road" and not a "KSP, Y U NO PHYSICS!?"

Reddot99: (quotes seem to be borked) Assuming you could keep it under control, you could land it by just powering down the jets. If you were really adventurous and used MSI rotators for the "blades" (tried, didn't work though now I don't remember why.) you could invert their pitch right before touchdown, and make use of the angular momentum built up during the autorotation as it descends to give yourself a burst of lift. You can see that in the video: as it falls, the force of the air starts to spin the blades backwards. I shut down the engines at some point forgetting that it was a drone core, and so I lost control. Even with 4x reaction wheels, though, it was not very controllable. The angular momentum of the circular fuel tank (yeah...) was immense, so any attempt to turn would result in an undesired result.

This makes me quite happy. I fully approve of a series of optimization mods.

Well, while everyone is showing off their videos of what they can do with gantries and pistons and such, here's something for the poor, forgotten free-spinning docking washers.

I apologize if this is the wrong board. I'm kind of confused. On a whim, I decided to make a short video showing the sorts of things that can be done using Kerbcom Avionics, by ZRM. In my opinion, it came out quite nicely, and I thought I'd share it for anyone who might be interested. If you're the sort of person who gets bored easily, feel free to skip ahead. Roughly two minutes in is where I figure out how to fly the thing properly.