Justin Kerbice

What you do is just a little sketch nothing more as it is no, look at this compilation of infos (it can't be more visible as it is now), splitting into individual parts is up to you, you have to design nose cone, cockpit, wings, control surfaces, engine(s), ... But all of this in a first mod is most likely trying to move a mountain with bare hands. You'd better make some static parts which can be mixed with some stock parts (a new nose cone, then some wings, ...) in an iterative way: 1 nose cone done well => one wing => ... every time something more "complicated"/tricky when you have learnt enough. Hope this help.

Animations will be quite hard to do (because there is no doc mostly, like to make a kerbal suit himself to a custom seat) anyway it was just a joke of course . I think of a really useful use of your mod and I have an actual example: as I don't use KER that's much, I would like to remove it, I can do it "the hard way" but KSP will aslo play the same hard way with all my ships which have a single small KER chips on them (too bad !), with your mod, I can set up one or more chop-chop/lumberjack mission to first remove all those KER chips I no longer want, then remove safely the mod. That's lead to a new mod/a feature added to your mod: auto remove all surface attached (without other parts connected to them) part of our choice. So people can safely remove mod with this kind of parts: KER, Mechjeb, HullCAMVDS, ... there can be a list of vessels (including debris) using the part and a confirm ("do you really want to chop this part for good: Y/N").

Are you happy marce ? Now we'll have to face a new threat: vandalism ! Be careful kerbals, some evil gremlins will chop your fuel lines, probe, SAS module, RCS thrusters, batteries, ... If only we can also the animation of a kerbals become mad and trying to remove some part by dragging it, beat it, use his big head as hammer, ... Funny idea and thank you for this plug-in.

I build one single object as complicated as I can imagine/made, drop it into unity, ask it to add collider, don't check "convex" and export. (I guess static thing make it more unity-friendly than parts, fortunately.)

You forgot one gigantic point: buildings ARE NOT parts ! I don't use convex collider with all of buildings I've made*, no issue from now, they behave exactly like stock buildings and terrain. Look at my stunt ring, no convex collider, plane or anything can go through it, but crash on the "walls". If you really want convex collider: split split split and split ! But it will become a nightmare very fast (I split my first new robottom version into 18 convex colliders, FPS was already killed in VAB !) *except the WIP CFA runway, but perhaps not in the lastest released version

First, to many people, massless should be avoided as it's not a proper word and it's confusing, those physically insignificant parts have their own mass, try put some on a separator and drop them, do they stay in the air ? No ! Don't forget KSP is a game, as opposite to real life, we can't (mostly) merge parts together, or include them inside another, whereas IRL, it's possible to put some batteries'cells inside an empty space in a tank (random example, don't think it's very safe to do that , especially if those batteries suffer the same issues as 787 ones), they can also be specifically designed for one single rocket to be sure all is well balanced.

Are you really sure ? As you didn't give any details, we have to trust you on this and many time people believe what they do is right when they're wrong ! (remember the old call to customer support with non connected power plug for a computer problem !) Weird. Anyway, unity didn't export texture as best as it could do, so better to put even a single color pixel tex with the right name, let unity do its cooking, then replace the dummy tex with a proper one (Targa file for example have been reported to be less/not compressed, PNG are know to don't work very well too, but it's from old posts). (I've also encountered some issues with unity, inside KSP, using some targa files, not sure of what the problem is, perhaps compression scheme, 24/32 bits, or origin setting) And using the very latest unity editor is not the right thing to do with KSP (for dealing with emissive anim => 4.2.2, else the 4.3.3 should be ok).

you're more than right on this, people willing to get realism are quite "foolish" IMHO as long as all single physical/chemical/mechanical/nuclear/... laws can't be there all together in a single simulator. And there are enough simulators of real world (FS for planes/choppers for example) to let kerbals be just kerbal and live in their own universe. The sig question is funny Perhaps they doubt we don't recognize them .

Looks great, as usual ! Thanks for the update. little additions: could you name the archive according to the version, it's always Firespitter_pre.zip, so people who are too lazy will downlaod it, install it then report bug to... which version ? The last ? what if you release 7.1pre3, 7.2pre4684684 between ? and the apache craft link is "broken".

+1, how can I miss those parts, they look so funny ! (Despite someone at Squad made a backup copy of spaceport, I think we can even wait to die before they may even considering maybe perhaps having a little look in it)

just a tiny detail, right to the download link: version may be updated here (or some people might say => ":huh: where is Airbags_0.1.0.zip ?")

People need really to search a bit better before asking for new features (which actually already exist) => aviation lights By the way, why asking for a stock features which will be updated (in case of issues) once or twice a year, at best, a probably never improved, whereas a mod could be updated/improved almost each months, or more often, and for which authors are more likely to listen to users and be more active ?

Sorry, I have bad quoted I guess, my message was mainly for raxo2222 list. The redundancy statement may be also a mystake or something like that, as this config doesn't apply to plug-in only (no sense) and transportation type mod (cargo, fairings, no sense too, unless someone like to put a cargo in a cargo, it's kind of super-cargo), and if you look more closely on post by Joshwoo69, he/she quote specifically KAS, which is redundant (KAS in KAS ? ).

A small craft as example: The claw as nose was just a crazy idea, the rest of the craft can be use as a reliable base, as it is very easy to fly. download

Devo strike back !! Thanks for this ship. Now we may need the "evil" drones to play with .

Or they have their head full of dreams (it is so big !)

Another incredible ship by Cupcake !! thanks. the ship in the teaser is even more crazy !! Poor train.

Damned I've never be really aware of that, thanks guys. But, what explain weird (SAS only ?) behaviour ? Such thing, not really a plane, just move in a circle until it hit the ground, not really useful. Maybe is another issue related to SAS/CoM/something.

Ok. It's unbelievable and also quite a poor excuse, how it can be possible such bad parts can have been included as-is as stock and NEVER FIXED ! I'll never understand that... AFAIK CoM is in fact what the modeler decide by putting his/her part at any origin. These low nodes on mk2 fuselage parts can make sense if fuel is stored more in the bottom, as there are also fuselage, which mean full of nothing + structural parts + wires and insulation material. Center of the volume is not always the CoM.

I see, a KSP issue (again). Here is one pic, not really the best: front CS point in opposite way as back CS (pitch up) and even the small wing with integrated CS put on the front FLT-800 side suffer from the same issue ! Thanks for the info.

Hi, as they are now, the two stock control surfaces doesn't have any hint to show what is up, what is down sides. The big issue is when you put for example delta wings on something editor believe to be in the opposite direction for one reason or another (like when you attach them to a mk2 fuselage, DW are placed backward by default), the CS are put upside-down but it looks like they are attached as expected (rotation works the exact same way), so when you try to fly your craft, SAS become mad and it makes the "plane" turn in an infinite loop without choosing a direction or a way. Without SAS is also uncontrollable. Even rotate CS by 180° (using D twice for ex) doesn't change anything at all, they decide they're good as they are and don't want to change a bit ! Stubborn CS !! Could it be possible in a further update to have some specific marks/decals on CS (like "this side up") ? At least. Thanks. EDIT: I don't even think such help will be enough as those CS really don't want to be put as they should be, looks like an editor issue/lack.

I guess you've not understand well the purpose of this MM config, it has been made to allow parts (mod which is a plug-in only are irrelevant) to be KAS compatible, which means small enough parts can be put on a KAS box/container or picked by a kerbal on EVA. So a JB-64 for example will have not a single chance to be added to this config (unless after badasses, Squad add Herculean kerbals, or maybe a "power-up": space steroids or "astr-eroids" )

yes ! by the way 0.9 version means I'll not left it as-is and fix remaining issues when I can. Next set will be nose cones or misc parts.

Thanks to you for the two highlighted points: - clamp-o-tron junior fit really well on it (I did it) so does it worth the time and energy to add your own on it ? I don't think so. I use this to deliver the Dune Raider on Kerbin by a dedicated plane. (too bad imgur prevent me to show you my creation) - for this, I know it's "cheating", gravity hack can really help, I waste a lot's of time doing such rescue on my own with KAS magnet without much success, evne one time I have 3 vessels which "drop on their head", including a plane which have the bad idea to land on the hatch ! KSP is a game after all so...

@Taverius: removing/replacing stock mk2 parts with some with nodes on different locations is a very bad idea IMHO as ALL stock mk2 compatible mods become more or less useless/unusable (and potentially all mkX parts if you do the same with mk3 parts) ! Like Spaceplane Plus or my inline air intakes (which doesn't provide any alternative connections scheme like a mk2-> 1.25m diameter adapter).