panzer1b

Members
  • Content Count

    1,470
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

787 Excellent

5 Followers

About panzer1b

  • Rank
    Sci-Fi Military Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

2,691 profile views
  1. I hope squad doesnt touch ANY porkjet part, since its basically impossible for them to exceed his quality in terms of art style, texture efficiency, and a look that is in my opinion perfect for KSP: simplistic with nice handpainted like details when you look up close.
  2. Alright i will be honest, and i really really dont like the fact that you decided to keep virtually identical geometry for these parts. That bump at the bottom of the A10 adaptor looks like crap (and has since day 1), is not aerodynamic at all and thus should not have any useage on a spacecraft (unaerodynamic on the flatter A5 is fine imo since that is more of a part youd use on a starbase as flat isnt meant to be aerodynamic, but not on the more aeroy A10). Im not asking for a ideal cone (as that would be boring), but maybee tone down that bottom square blocky bump that makes me seriously avoid using the part. Maybee try something akin to the RT-5/10 circulary bumps which may add some drag, but are not blatantly square and unplausible on every level. Aside from that, the textures are ok, but i would like to see the parts become a little simpler (for something that is purely meant to bridge the gap between 0.6 and 1.2m cross sections) like what @Tyko said, too complex and detailed for a barebones part like an adaptor. Normally i like details and features, but there is a point where such details become overkill, and i think this part has crossed the line into overkill territory. Other then that, ill take them over the old ones (which are utter garbage), but its a bit of a step backwards compared to some of the other parts ive seen made (especially unhappy with the decision to reuse the pathetic 3D models and not make 100% new ones), and really should be looked at again before release.
  3. I really like this new model, especially the ability to use a "bare" version which lets me stick these rather versatile things on almost any vessel, even ones that have sub 0.6m engine assemblies (replicas come to mind but thats not all). The shielded one is also nice since i can finally get rid of the so called fake shrouds by placing a backwards facing small air intake on the rear of said engine to make it look cooler (might still do it on some ships but its nolonger a essential part of every design and saves 1 part per engine, which adds up when you have a entire squadron of starfighters each with 3+ engines on them). And unlike everything from MH, it HAS ACTUAL GLOWY FX!!! Really cant find a single thing to complain about which is rather impressive considering i tend to be super picky about every little detail, and this one looks spot on. It may have taken a bit of time (and alot of very vocal forum rage posts from a few people), but it seems the art team actually understands to a good degree what makes a KSP part look decent, while keeping polycount and excessive resolution down, not to mention making it have just the right amount of details and simplicity. GJ @SQUAD and keep up the good work.
  4. I really like this, specifically the dark edge border near the connection between the end cap and the side wall, which makes it more believeable that there is a interface in that spot. Good example would be my own slightly tweaked revamp 1.2m rocket tanks, where i added a similar edge myself since the default part lacked one and just magically made the end cap's material change into the wall material with no dark edge (which looks better when stacked as you can see where the parts end and begin when up close but still keeps it looking good at a distance as a solid unit). Its not 100% authentic to reality, but it looks ages better then what the new parts ship like, and it was a technique used by porkjet to make part edges look less fake.
  5. You are free to post it on ckan aslong as it doesnt interfere with my ability to make future updates (i may have barely any freetime, but that doesnt mean im done playing KSP or shelved this mod, i just rarely update mods these days as i just cant find the time commitment and honestly cant think of any features to add to this mod that are worth it imo). Also, i can try to fix the dropbox link, see if this one works for you guys: https://www.dropbox.com/s/egxngln8t0vqgzf/SiFiVE-1.4.zip?dl=0 If not, i can try to upload to another website https://www.dropbox.com/s/k3g1f2o6zewdr6e/SiFiVE-1.4.zip?dl=0 and here is an alterate upload+link, if the 1st dont work try dis one Also, i dont use MIT liscense (that was purely for EVE which is bundled with my upload and was asked by mod to add it in), i use my own (which basically lets you guys do whatever solong as no monetary useage involved without explicit permissions), so yeah, if anyone else wants to use my mod and make their own versions go for it, solong as im still allowed to update this mod myself when/if i actually make another update to it. Also updated OP with new link to folder, hopefully works for yall and can end this unable to download mod fiasco...
  6. So yeah, been thinking a bit about it and while i really love the squareness of the rover/capital ship variant (there are way to damn many circular things in stock KSP, yes i KNOW its "realistic" but realism doesnt make starships look good imo), i do agree with the window issues, that frame looks super squish and not something that can actually handly any sort of pressure differential (sci-fi or not, there are some basic fundamentals that make sense to have). Even the inline starfighter cockpit is believeable since its a curved rounded window that could at least in theory be a decent pressure vessel, but popsicle stick frame with no rounded corners would be (outside of super alloys used on capital ships in some of the less plausible sci-fi) completely unpractical from a structural element (and im a engineer irl, so i actually understand these things). Another sorta personal complain is that the entire window looks way too square compared to some of the other parts in KSP and doesnt really fit in all that well. Compare it to the porkjet cockpit parts (or even the cupola which is probably the ONLY non porkjet stock pod besides the newly released mk-1 that i actually like the look of), most of those are non-square windows that are imo cooler looking, very slight corner rounding, and overall look great inside and out. Not sure if its possible, but id really like to see a bit less "square", and bit more varied shape like the side windows which are great. Finally, i know this is likely driven by an attempt at sticking somewhat to the older style, but id love to see the entire part that stick out past the 2.5m diameter to be gone and have something similar to @SuicidalInsanity's concept art: As to the window style, i actually like this render much better since it isnt just entirely square panels, and it looks way more natural. That and this would provide both landing visibility, and allow you to make it a flush part of a 2.5m stack and not have it stick out awkwardly, while not affecting the rover/capital ship cockpit functionality. I also like @Daishi's idea, minus the lack of flat side walls for the rover/capital ship slimmed model (easier to integrate with other thinsg when those sides are flat without the extra side boxes). I really like the fact that the bays on the sides look like they are clearly a different part that was added after the fact and not an integral part of the model, and i like the idea with the structural ribbing near said side storage boxes as well as the gap between the . My idea version would be @Daishi's with the front kept within 2.5m size (so nothing sticks out when in a stack) and flat sides where the boxes attach to the cockpit section. Still, at this point, id take either of these 2 concepts over the stock one, since they look cooler, and are both cooler looking (specifically the latter), while keeping them at least sorta believeable with regards to teh windows.
  7. The "lite" version is deprecated anyways so there is no reason to use it at all (i just kept it for those that wanted to take a look at older versions). To achieve the lite version using the newest version, download and do not place the 2 folders called ScifiVisualEnchancements_Clouds and ScifiVisualEnchancements_Dust into gamedata. That gives you the lite version which is purely the planet glowy parts with no clouds and no planet surface dust effects. I made it this way in version 1.4 so the less technically savy didnt have to go into the mod folders and mess with the configs to disable certain aspects of the mod, just install the correct folders based on what aspects of the mod they wanted to use (say someone never spends much time on the planet surface, you can install _Base and _Clouds and not _Dust to save a few frames by not installing a feature they would rarely if ever notice). So yeah, in case anyone else wants to know: ScifiVisualEnchancements_Base: the required dependency which comes ONLY with the planetary glow layers and nothing else ScifiVisualEnchancements_Clouds: only adds clouds to planets where it makes sense to (laythe, kerbin, duna, jool, eve) ScifiVisualEnchancements_Dust: adds ground dust effects to many planets, specifically those without atmo, and a few effects to atmo planets like duna dust storms
  8. I absolutely love the new slimmed down option. ***FINALLY AFTER YEARS OF WAITING, A NON-CIRCULAR STOCK POD!!!!!!*** So yeah, looks decent, and it finally will give me a good looking capital ship bridge assuming the cockpit orientation is right (please make the circular one have current control axis, and the rover model have the axis similar to teh newly redone rovemate thing so that it controls right when put on a vehicle (or capital ship).
  9. panzer1b

    Naval Battle League 2016-2018

    Well the thing comes down to 2 issues: 1: Its is extremely difficult if not impossible to make a hull (with no weapons) below ~150 parts for a frigate sized ship and not have the result be 1 shotted by anything the enemy throws at it. Then you add weapons atop it which is a bare minimum of ~4 parts PER SHOT, and if you want to have something that is good for more then a single attack then you are going to be using both more complex weapons (most powerful guided 1.2m weapons are ~15-20 parts), and is going to have multiple rounds so that there is a good chance it can take down 2-3 targets before running out of ammo. Another thing coming back to armoring is that more weapons = more redundancy and less chance of a enemy 1 shot neutering the craft. 2: Many of us design ships around asthetics, and that multiplies the already above average part count by a factor of 1.5-3 depending on how much in depth we are willing to go. A great recent example of this is miffedstarfish's mass effect ships he showed a few weeks back. Those use the new DLC panels which allowed him to create some of the most beautiful and sleek hulls ive ever seen, but at the cost of breaking 300 parts since quite a bit of the hull was made of teh smallest panel available, there were many of the smallest wing part to fill gaps, and other cases where asthetic requirements drove the part count upwards from what a comparable but 100% combat effective ship would be. So yeah, if you want to have a real battle, be prepared for at a bare minimum ~200 parts per vessel, more likely 300+. Only starfighters are a bit easier on the CPU, since those rarely exceed 100 parts (unless its a TriFighter or some overengineered monstrosity with 12 ibeam weapons onboard). In other news: i FINALLY fixed my computer, so i can actually get back into KSP after a week's long hiatus (stupid GPU's thermal paste dried out and it was cooking itself). Maybee if i can get 1 more ship im happy with designed i can actually do that jool battle ive been planning for quite some time now..
  10. I agree except NO touching the nosecones (or any other porkjet parts unless its purely to add variants and still leave the base texture as is), those are porkjet parts and NEED to stay as they are (as in prettier then anything ive ever seen squad do post porkjet and dev exodus). The only aerodynamic cone that needs revamping is the really really old one with the blue circle on the top (the blunt one) since it does look like trash. But yeah, id love to see the smaller engines redone, specifically the 909, 48-7s, and the lvt-30/45 series. Id say that 95% of ships which dont use nukes or jets (at least in my gameplay) use one of those engines in them (or the aerospike but thats already good looking). After that maybee take a look at the 2.5m engines, some of those really could use a facelift...
  11. Hell yes, finally i might actually start using these parts for something. Combination of terrible looks and somewhat niche uses made me avoid ALL the stack couplers until 1.6 that is. Now if only i can find a reason besides the cool new looks to use these things, useless for capital ships cause they make your engines vulnurable, and not really needed on rockits since there is no 3.75m models (ever since the nasa parts because a thing, 90% of my rockets use those parts). I especially like teh grey/orange textures available, since they make it possible to break up the monotony of the otherwise almost everything being white in the stock game. Anyways, the ONLY thing i see that can be improved is the overuse of the porkjet end cap. While i understand it will make parts look similar to each other, the utter lack of variety is worse then trying to make every single part fit perfectly besides every other part...
  12. Probably the parts, especially fuel tanks and mk-1 pod since the old models were so bad i actually went out of my way to not use them in most of my ships (instead of FLT-200, i used the mk1 porkjet fuel tank cfg edited to have LFO in it). Other then that, obviously bugfixes, although thats usually the least noticable thing from many people. The dV thing is neat, but honestly i dont see it as such a big deal as most people being quite capable with a calculator (it really doesnt take me more then 30 seconds or so to get a ship's dV provided that it doesnt have some super complex staging). Not that they arent without their flaws, but the new models and textures really make this game look better. yeah its not porkjet style anymore (which is kinda sad), but at least its ages better then what we had from the early days of KSP and adds a few neat things like the shiny probes and such.
  13. panzer1b

    Naval Battle League 2016-2018

    I actually extended that pod purely to save on part count and not because i had to stick 2 SRM-4s in there (originally was gonna be a single SRM-4 in nose), but using the smaller structural panels over that big a distance ate too many parts for me to justify it even if it looks better then the wide style (same reason i used those wings on the sides, just 1 part per side is better then all those super tiny DLC panels (looks better with DLC panels, but i cant deal with that part count on my designs so it has to be a wing on the side). In other news, im making good progress on my Nebula-II class corvette (its a bit longer then the original so i might designate it as a frigate because it really is with its weapons payload). The 1st complete overhaul of my old ships to make them look less terrible (nothing wrong with old models, but excessive symmetry looks bad, i dont mind symmetry in 1 axis, but 2 axis symmetry (same up/down and left/right) really doesnt look good imo, so i managed to shift some stuff around to make the new SK-IV actually visually appealing while still keeping some of the old styling and ofc i love the nose of this thing, rectangles are overrated anyway. Also doing a bit of standardizing weapon payloads, such as removing excess kdrones (you really dont need more then 2 on anything but a dedicated flakboat or anti-fighter ship), cutting down on excessive hardpoint amounts (a SRM-4 is more vulnurable to being shot off but it saves alot of parts over 4 SRM-1s), and redoing my guided torpedoes (the G5b is decent, but i think im going to move all my ships towards using G7cs, heavier and more parts but also deadlier then even 2 G5bs). It wont make the ships much better/worse, but itll hopefully cut down on the excessive amount of overengineering i have a tendency to do with all my combat vessel designs while still keeping them competitive and not much below their older counterparts. Well, i think ive finished my new Nebula-II class corvette, and its the prettiest thing ive created in years. Gone are the days of 100% efficiency, looks come 1st, then part count, then range and armor, and if i can afford it guns. Sofar its armor is proving to be on par with the old Nebula class, a bit weaker (ive managed to 1 shot it a few times with the G7c, but its relatively uncommon sight) but im happy with its survivability given that its become smaller and more compact, as well as loosing some redundancy, only 8 hardpoints on this model vs the 11 on the previous, and only 1 bridge as the backup bridge as i couldnt get 2 to look good. I really really love the look of that primary gun barrel surrounded by the 2 G7cs, really scary to be looking directly at that thing given its rather impressive payload. Currently armed with 2 G7c torpedoes (one of my better models developed for AKS, not perfect and rather large, but packs a incredible punch for its weight and simplicity), 4 SRM-4 launchers for taking down anything that gets within 200m (and while they suck individually, fired in numbers will cut most ships in half), and 2 kinetic drones for some anti-fighter and precision targeting. Tested it against my relatively recent Javelin class i made for a rival faction called BC, and well it ended faster then i expected it to given that the ship can actually get alot of damage out with its HT-1210 torps (one of the stronger missiles available to BC). Obviously i had the weaker ship fire 1st, and all it did was vaporize the Nebula-II's center engine and i think knock out the RCS fuel, both of which it can go without. The G7c fired in retaliation was alot more successful in that it destroyed the remaining missile stack on the Javelin and blew off most of the front armor. And as expected, the secondarys of the Javelin were completely worthless, just took down a few of the cosmetic wing panels on the top and despite a confirmed direct hit on it, didnt hurt the bridge. After 1 salvos of SRM-4s, it sorta got cut in half, most likely because of the damage the G7c did to it before. Defenetely a keeper, even if i might make a few adjustments down the line to get its weapons layout optimized as id rather have just 2 SRM-4s and add another 1.2m hardpoint in the center for either another G7c, or a simple and low part count stack of RT-5s which seems to work very well against anything that doesnt immediately die to SRMs. maybee a different ship though, since i cant think of how to do that without ruining the nose which is the main reason it looks so epic. So thanks alot @MiffedStarfish, your ship inspired me to do something i havent been able to in years, create an warship that both looks amazing and still works perfectly in the combat role.
  14. panzer1b

    Naval Battle League 2016-2018

    So um @MiffedStarfish, please dont kill me for this: I just couldnt help myself and had to copy the overall layout of your ship, looks prettier then anything ive ever made, and seeing that thing got me back into asthetic design rather then pure armor+firepower+range (as effective as the SK-IV Nebula is, i really hate that ship as it looks way too bland). While i havent exactly started making cannon fodder, all of my new designs are much more focused on asthetics then 100% raw combat capability. The pulsar is still WIP and i plan to completely redo the wings on the sides (i have my own idea for what to do there), but sofar im just really liking this thing's appearance...
  15. panzer1b

    Naval Battle League 2016-2018

    I dont think there is any unified theory, everyone has their own standards to classify stuff. My own system tends to classify ships based on size relative to starfighters since its physically impossible to make a fighter smaller then they are due to minimum pod sizes (even with command chairs you are still severely limited in dimensions). To that end, 90% of my ships fall into corvettes, frigates, or subcapitals (the latter of which is mostly gunboats or torpedo carriers, sometimes very large bombers also fit in here) since its just impossible to make anything larger then a destroyer without going to such high part count that its just not fun to fly the ship (i tend not to make anything over 400 parts since i just cannot stand the choppy framerates and inability to bring any extras nearby like onboard fighters). I have like 2 destroyers and 1 attempt at a cruiser (which is currently a massive failure despite looking ultra pretty), but all of them suffer to an extent from terrible armor due to shortcuts i was forced to take in order to cut the parts down to managable levels. All of them are predominantly made out of MK-3 cargo bays, and while MK-2 and MK-3 parts are fairly resilient, getting even 1 of them destroyed hurts a massive ship much more then loosing a single MK-2 bay on my smaller ones. If i actually made those out of MK-2 and structural parts entirely, part count would go from 300-400, to over 1000, and there is just no bloody way to make a ship like that work for me (best example of this is zeke's drek series, many of those broke 1K parts, and while they were the right size to be destroyers/cruisers, and had decent armor, just couldnt be loaded by anyone that didnt have a supercomputer, and could not be used within a fleet with other ships loaded simultaneously. This is my best starfighter i have as of this point and time, the HK-II next to a newely refit nebula class corvette (which based on firepower and mass should prolly be a frigate, but i call it a corvette since its just so damn compact and smaller then plenty of other corvettes). That fighter is fairly average compared to most of the fighters i have at this time, and id consider the smallest true capital ship to be at least twice the length of that fighter (or if its geometry is not conventional at least 4-5 times the width/height). And a bit off topic, but i think 2 SRM-4s on a single fighter thats under 10t is a bit overkill, ill prolly rearm the actual production model with 2 SRM-4Ls and a single SRM-1 which will make it lighter and give it a bit of a purpose as a fighter and not a slice in half anything stupid enough to get anywhere near it fighter that it is now with all those shipkillers while still having a single SRM to hurt capitals effectively. Too bad the part coint on the HK-II sucks, its like over 100 with the 3 SRM-4 loadout, for a single fighter that would realistically be deployed in squadrons of 3 from a refit galaxy class assault carrier.