Bartybum

Members
  • Content count

    150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Good

About Bartybum

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer
  1. [1.3.0] Procedural Parts - Starwaster Branch

    No doubt you've seen this already Starwaster, but I was wondering what other people thought of this? Advanced Cross Section Dimensions: Each end of a fuel tank has tweakable geometric properties. These would be unique to each end. For example, you could have a fuel tank that starts as a tall ellipse and ends as a flat ellipse, or a square with small chamfer corners growing in size as you move down the tank. Section width Section height Cross Section Smoothing: Each end of a fuel tank has optional smoothing. What this means is that you can make a tank change shape smoothly, rather than instantaneously. This would allow you to have multiple parts inline that gradually change shape so that your fuselage doesn't have any jagged lines. This imgur link describes what I'm talking about. Section Offset: Each end of a fuel tank can be offset both vertically and horizontally. This would allow you to create long and smooth tail/nose pieces, much like what we see in aircraft in reality. I read your OP and realise you've got heaps on your plate in regards to maintenance, but I thought I'd just copy my comments from the other Procedural Parts thread here for others to see, and perhaps as a way to log them in case the other thread dies. I honestly reckon those three things above would be amazing if implemented in the distant future
  2. Heyyo, I have an idea regarding further tweakable geometric properties for the regular fuel tanks. Advanced Cross Section Dimensions: Each end of a fuel tank has tweakable geometric properties. These would be unique to each end. For example, you could have a fuel tank that starts as a tall ellipse and ends as a flat ellipse, or a square with small chamfer corners growing in size as you move down the tank. Section width Section height Chamfer size Fillet radius Cross Section Smoothing: Each end of a fuel tank has optional smoothing. What this means is that you can make a tank change shape smoothly, rather than instantaneously. This would allow you to have multiple parts inline that gradually change shape so that your fuselage doesn't have any jagged lines. This imgur link describes what I'm talking about. Section Offset: Each end of a fuel tank can be offset both vertically and horizontally. This would allow you to create long and smooth tail/nose pieces, much like what we see in aircraft in reality. Have these potential features been brought up by anyone before?
  3. By now there's multiple procedural parts generation mods that allow fully custom rocket and spaceplane designs. However, I'm yet to see one that tailors towards more graceful fuselage design for aircraft. I doubt I'm the first to think of this, but I haven't yet found any topics that discuss this. The would only feature one part - a regular procedural fuel tank. Users can edit the same properties that current procedural parts mods allow, such as textures, width, length, part type (fuel, structural, battery, etc), and so on. However, the following customisation options would also be included: Cross Section Type: Each fuel tank has a cross sectional shape that can be changed. Ellipse Rectangle Chamfer Rectangle (diagonal corners) Fillet Rectangle (rounded corners) Cross Section Dimensions: Each end of a fuel tank has tweakable geometric properties. These would be unique to each end. For example, you could have a fuel tank that starts as a tall ellipse and ends as a flat ellipse, or a square with small chamfer corners growing in size as you move down the tank. Section width Section height Chamfer size Fillet radius Cross Section Smoothing: Each end of a fuel tank has optional smoothing. What this means is that you can make a tank change shape smoothly, rather than instantaneously. This would allow you to have multiple parts inline that gradually change shape so that your fuselage doesn't have any jagged lines. This imgur link describes what I'm talking about. Section Offset: Each end of a fuel tank can be offset vertically and horizontally. This would allow you to create long and smooth tail/nose pieces, much like what we see in aircraft in reality. Is there anything already like this? What do you guys think of this?
  4. Would it be possible for us to get super short landing gear, or a negative gear extension? Scaling them down repeatedly gets a bit annoying after a while especially since the wheels keep reducing in size, sometimes to a point where their size is unrealistic.
  5. KSP has needed atmospheric scattering for ages. So glad someone's finally bit the bullet and taken it on themselves Thank you so much dude!
  6. B1-B lancer WIP

    I would advise against it eorin, solely because 1.0 is going to come out in the distant future (few months at the least) and you'll most likely need to redesign your .craft by then anyways. I'm sure the community would greatly appreciate if you were to release it now
  7. All good. I just downloaded Adjustable Landing gear to deal with it
  8. There is no option for "toggle brakes", only "brakes". I just tried that and it still doesn't work
  9. My brakes don't work with the normal "B" bind. Wat do
  10. I'm not sure what you mean. What exactly entails enabling them?
  11. I installed it but there's been no visible change. The distant object flares don't appear. As far as I know, I installed it correctly - I copied what was in the Gamedata folder to the Gamedata folder in the KSP directory. Pls halp
  12. I wish for three resources, no more no less. I'd hope that these resources are all available in some amount per planet, and that for the sake of gameplay they only run out after a very long time (I'm in game years of continuous mining.) No idea on how they'd be implemented, I just want a little bit of realism as opposed to the one-thing-feeds-all mechanic that Kethane and Karbonite have.
  13. The way I see it is that making one of them an orange suit for the sake of diversity is sexist. NO ONE in cases such as these should be receiving special preference over someone else solely because of their gender. The original three are orange because they pay homage to the game's roots and, if I remember correctly one of the devs' childhood. Female Kerbals happen to not be part of this orange homage. Therefore the claim of Squad perpetuating gender discrimination is an invalid and quite frankly ignorant accusation.
  14. Please tell me where I said that lack of facial hair is feminine. I'm well aware that there are males who may not have stubble, who may choose to shave. Adding female names to a square face with a skin-grazing haircut isn't going to convince the general public when they look at videos of the game. The general public of most societies on our planet will respectfully disagree with you on the claim that they don't look male. Traditionally (last 40 years), in most cultures around the world, males have had shorter hair than females. I'm not ignoring the presence of women with short hair, I'm saying that short hair is typically associated with males, and hair as short as the current Kerbals' is almost never found on females. This association is the reason male children often have short hair, whereas girls have long hair. Anyway, what's the harm in adding more than one hairstyle? I'm willing to bet that the devs will one day open up to randomized hairstyles. The more variety, the merrier.
  15. You forget the short hair that is most typically male in appearance. Also what about the masculine voice? How about the facial hair on some of them? You're telling me all those aren't characteristic of males? So you're labelling me sexist for assuming that the names "Jebediah", "Bill", "Bob", "Phildred", "Edford", "Billy" and "Matford" are male names? Seriously? Kerbals are assumed by almost everyone unfamiliar with the game to be male, because of their appearance, because that's how most men look in the real world.