Justin Kerbice

I guess you're more looking for a "flaginator" or something close to this, there is one here (very messy thread IMHO, so good luck to find it ) I remember seeing examples of flagdecal style pic all around a ship. Templates are what they are, it's the same as learning to build a working plane in KSP, it's need to get some skills, you can't assemble a tank, an engine, some wings and complain after that your plane fly like crap. I'll have to post my request for stock cies logos. And yes, that's makes things easier for everyone, stupid symmetry thing :/.

Got the same issue too, Alshain your explanation are good but does the KSP stock panels are in fact composed of more than one single "unique" panel (folded planes), each one working independently to the others, so kind of "one filament" per sub-panel, which makes the outer ones may work at better efficiency than the lower one(s) which may be shadowed. I guess suncatcher is in fact at the bottom so maybe the other panel are just cosmetic and does nothing. Also, sometimes, the opposite situation happened, panels works well in the shadow of a body ! (a tiny battery can hide what a giant sphere can't !)

no, never tried it yet. Looking at the code... it looks like to be automatic (nothing to specify, just add the module to the building, as it look for emissive animation on its own), may or may not work. I never see one single building using it yet.

Does the LV-N generate the same errors ? It's the only one stock engine to use 2 jettison modules, it may give you some hints, or not.

Another plug-in shouldn't be needed as: quoted from 1st post of kerbtown!

thanks. TweakScale config for stock parts. Try it, you'll see (ok texture will not match 3.5m parts but is this a big deal ? ).

Kerbtown, static objects can be seen from far distance (default 100 kms, maybe more). It appears static assets are like any other parts so it would be possible to use some standard modules like lights.

two thoughts: - why people would assume kerbal's universe is ruled by the exact same rules as ours ? Who said it was the case ? The fact is players wants to keep their marks wherever they virtually go and makes every "sci-fi" games ruled by the physics laws humans have discovered for now. It's a huge discomfort to move into unknown territories, left old habits behind, "think different" (but very different than one brand with an apple ) Why it couldn't be admitted that's bodies in kerbal's universes are stuck where they are and not submitted to gravity at all ? Why the star should be warm at all ? Why thrust can't be produced in apparent violation of the (in)famous 3rd law of thermodynamic ? Kerbal's universe is not ours and don't have to be limited by our current understanding of the universe IMHO. - the main problem which rise from studying one thing always the same way as others, from scientists to teachers to students, act as a blindfold. That's may explain why some geniuses comes from time to time to completely change the vision and the knowledge, they don't just follow the path the others are onto, they go where people taught them not to go, never, because it's too dangerous, because it could be considered "heretic". The same applied to game programming, if one people who work with unity (or any other engine) say one day "you just can't do that, period", people who follow the lead and do their own games moves and stop themselves to the invisible wall they have learn to believe it was just there, but it was not, and they don't know that, they even can't imagine they can go further, just one step ahead, and never move... until someone who have not learn the same way (self learner mostly) just cross the imaginary wall and shows it was in fact possible and the former people was wrong. It's like people in the early days claiming human would never fly in the sky (something like "nothing heavier than air can fly, not a chance"), or for cars in the beginning of the 20thcentury: going faster than 40 km/h can't be achieve due to human biology. Some others don't care or keep their mind open... and did it !

It would be good to have some inputs directly from Harvester or someone who knows the true answer, because guesspeculating is not good. What I don't understand is TW should be seen as time step modification, as to be very very simple: (for current frame) physics[t] = something_like_get_previous_state(physics[t-1]) + forces_actually_at_work[t] display_frame(t) with t = the time step. using timewarp should make t=t+1 become t=t+TW (+2/3/4 for stock atmo warp) with a bit of code to interpolate forces between skip frames (if you have z= +50 kN, every frame, thurst for TW2 = 100 kN for frame 1 to frame 3, with TW2 = 2x timewarp) + all the related calculations. Considering the basic game loop may be: while (1) { do calculations manage vsync (=wait if needed) display frame } Then, "bizarre" forces and SAS misbehaviour should not happened, but it's not actually the case, all parts joints that could bend (typically wing connectors) bend and SAS is unable to work properly (if we can consider it's even work properly as it's very dumb most of the time but that's another topic)

Nice to get back Nova's part, but I'm afrais the 3.75m SAS is a waste of time as stock TW config may add one already. (by the way, please remove macos files from your archives: .DS_Store files in every dir and _MACOSX directories here or there)

Thanks for giving it a try , anyway, the thing to do now is to set throttle back to zero BEFORE starting the engine(s)... new task to add to preflight checklist !

Symmetry in KSP is bad because it use 180° rotation instead of mirroring, don't use it, sorry. And don't forget to ask Squad for a proper symmetry tool. Maybe, maybe no, my todo list is already long enough, I have some plan for this set, stay tuned. Good idea, I will think of it (a mk2 part, maybe more like the half-szed tank of SP+) Of course, one single part can't fit every single part available in the game, even no one yet have did such thing (procedural things allow only to change length, width, diameter or size). What are your idea regarding the user-friendly flexibility ? Templates are already provided to make your own ads, what could I do more on this (don't forget KSP have its own limits) and license is far far away to be restrictive ? I have also thought to make use of FSTexSwitcher module (allowing change of tex in VAB/SPH, don't like to allow it on flight). In your 'before edition' message, you ask for something more specific which can be done in not a long time. And you beat me on the line as I would post something to ask Squad for Hi-Res companies logo, the pics on GameData folder are too small to be good enough for not tiny textures.

Such dubious humour didn't worth a reply.

AFAIK: nothing (config/model wise). but using strut connectors help in such case, and without knowing what is your precise issue, it's hard to be specific. One thing to experiment (funny): put a fuel tank in the center, attach some (4, 6, 8) girders on its surface, attach small fuel tanks on the girders surface. On launch, even with (because of ? Never tried without I think) KJR, you'll get a "spontaneous destruction". This happen in fact every time you have some kind of: [ heavy part - light part - heavy part ] constrution. With strut connectors between the center FT and all the other, + between the FT and struts, to be sure, no such destruction happen. Weird unity thing I guess.

Hi, I see more and more plug-ins using shortcuts but many of them use the same, and when there is no way to change it, it can be really messy. What do you think, plug-in with shortcut key, to have some kind of summary of all key already in use ? Example: Kerbtown, KAS: CTRL-K vertical velocity something (configurable), the new stop warp, a few others: z ('z' looks like to be a very popular key ) With such a list (sticky to make sense), plug-in author could be aware of potential conflict and avoid them or provide a setting to change it. What do you think ?

I have just an idea to make this happen: instead of a complicated, potentially buggy thing with a new map, at least, bodies could be covered by the infamous fog of war (black or any other colour), like kethane map, atmo.visual enhancement (with its clouds) or the new karbonite map overlay. We start with some fog removed on KSC, rovers may have some "line of sight" radius around them, as weell as plane and spacecraft, BUT using a high altitude space craft may not make the job easy as it is so far it can get precise view of the landscape below, or it may need some high technology optical device + a kind of scansat satellite, which may be use mostly to fill the remaining holes of some area of bodies. After that, it may need a way to hide orbits to get something close to the original idea.

Funny to see the anchor idea come back (remember something to you lo-fi ). To be able to park a repulsor based vehicle, I usually slow its velocity to 5-10 m/s (pointing it backward if I have only "pusher" on it) then use landing gears + decrease height, so it gently rest on the ground. Carmaggedon so much fun ! The last episode was even more amazing but too much annoying with the stupid missions, I quit on the timed obstacle race on the bridge. This was the last... maybe these missions things was seriously bad enough and kill the game for good. For the poll, I choose "more wheels", it would be great to have the same kind of stock set: a tiny, kerbal sized wheel, a standard small vehicle size, then a medium and a big size wheels, and a huge one like LargeWheel for base/miner/heavy duty vehicles.

@MachXXV: I don't know if it is on purpose or not, but every time I g to the VAB/SPH, angle is set to 15° , is there any way to set it to default KSP value (the circle icon) ?

Such idea suits career mode very well (in immersion and "realism" point of view), and I'm pretty sure it has already suggested before (in suggestion forum). But you did it more precisely . Maybe as an option to mode (unveiled map ON/OFF). Of course KSC area (former KSC too ?) may be already there and fully explored, maybe a 50 kms circle around KSC and eventually old runway, unless it has been forgotten since then. I also think stuff like ScanSat do with its own maps could be nice, but, the big but is it needs a lot's of work and I'm afraid so much hack in the code which could lead to have a big kraken party everywhere ! Bodies could also be mapped from surface with rover, plane, drone, and even kerbals (by going to a mountains top, we may be able to map a significant area). Finally it needs science tools to identify new bodies and get their data.

@rbray89: is there any way to disable clouds on map view ? clouds are very nice but... when I need map, darkness is enough and clouds overlay just made map fully useless (a toolbar icon button to add/remove them would be great ). (by the way is there is any way to light the dark side of a body, it would be even greater to have it ).

That's happen when SAS is off and the pod align itself to its prograde vector. You may look in this way (turn off SAS, as you don't talk about it) or the orientation of your object (even you think the top is on top, if its not on y axis, it will not be considered as the top by KSP)

You're right ! People then what ? Complaint because the scene change take 10 s more just because of one single more building ? Because KSP use now 100 MB more memory (or even more) ? Because the game will run 5 FPS lower than before ? Especially does a single building which we don't now nothing about except its name will really matter ? It's juts to bad there is more things and not less, it would be great to have a lower LOD for KSC buildings (what's the point of having ultra detailed scene you don't even look at when launching you're crazy 5000 parts rocket ?)

So much for so few, air breathing/jet engines use: (here is values for my own mk2 engine which is very slow to respond to throttle on purpose) stock basic jet engine values are: It really makes an engine to be slow or not, easier than your formula. Feel free to change the part's values to whatever suits your needs, and even create a "VTOL trainer" jet engine, with very small values, just to get a rocket type jet engine.

The APU could be improved a little bit by using two mode like RAPIER engine, as oxydizer have its mass cost where we could take advantage of available oxygen in air. + exhaust damage may be disabled I think.

Already posted before but maybe lost in the crowed MJ thread: with multiple version of MJ, and the last 2.3.1.0, it would be better to use fixed length, 2 digits numbers for time, especially for AP/PE time as in TW, the text shift 1 or more char from left to right when going from 1 to 2 digits numbers: t0 AP: 15.2s t1 AP: 15.1s t2 AP: 15.0s t3 AP: 14.59s <- shift ... AP= 14.10s AP= 14.9s -> shift ... with big number (orbital period in days) in high timewarp speed, text "moves" from left to right and right to left, which is painful to watch and it makes the display quite "blurry". It'd be better to have all time in fixed length: xxx day xx h xx m xx s so 'd', h', 'm' and 's' chars stay aligned all the time even when numbers change fast. Thanks.