Justin Kerbice

Good idea but the whole thing of tracking beacon + calculate physics for parts looks like too complicated regarding what was already done in KSP. Successful landing is not such process resources demanding as you have mass + number of chutes + chutes capabilities + parts resistance, all mixed can give you just enough to make something good enough for the task. Tracking should be automatic I guess as NASA boosters recovery process, I think they just use a radar to get the approximate landing zone. Then if the code is smart designed enough, someone could create mod (part failure thing) to add some random "spicy" which make sometimes there is bad luck and parts are destroyed partially or not. Anyway, there is a big issue to fix first as even manned command pod with a kerbal inside disappear outside this 2.5 kms range, even when there is chutes, engine, anything attached to them.

No one on this ?

At first, I'm quite... => "what a dumb idea !" but reading your post made me => "it could be really cool" ! In fact, you could even make a 2D building facility for main design, then 3D view for small adjustment like adding strut connectors, ... 2D view could be kind of schematic of part layers ascii art style for a JB64, two radial decoupler and 2 FLT-800 tanks for example, with under that 2 LVT-30 and 1 Mainsail: o x | O M | o x There is some little explanations on ship file somewhere but there still some undocumented features which need to be discovered (as we can't expect Squad gives us the keys, they prefer to give a soccer ball)

editor/KSP ! Nodes should really be redo by a way or another, current nodes system is seriously too bad and too limited . (it will be completely stupid to make n parts for n attach ways !)

@Porkjet: it looks like you have a HAL9000 too ! Any chance to have node attach coordinates fixed ? Here is the issue, it is impossible to get (easily ?) mk2 fuselage attached to a radial decoupler: Compared to stock parts:

Don't remember what the 1st time pop-up on KSP was but I think IMHO something like: "blah blah blah, do you really want to enable it ?" Y/N, if N => cfg updated with disabled, for ALL modstatistics (just say it, I know only one run and take over the others). Unfortunately, names are not precise enough, like Goodspeed (tweakscale + pump plugins), for plug-in, library's name should be use (without the extension), for parts... very very hard to impossible . Impossible because we can make as much as mess as we want, as long as we do it with KSP directory structure respect. For my parts, all are under one single name, and various parts set are not easy to identify, example: my AMUG/AMEG parts are in Kerbice Group\Parts\Utility\AMEG_and_AMUG the plane parts I'm working on are in Kerbice Group\Parts\Plane (but split in various set: inline air intakes, mk2 misc parts, nose cones and mk2 engines) Unless I give a little help to modstatistics, it won't be able to sort it out by itself.

Don't want to be kind of "rude" or something but it's not very relevant to the thread you've just unburied . I already wrote about this, big issue: mostly noisy morons wants more (see madness around 0.23.5 release !), they don't care about better, improved, optimized KSP . I'm sure they prefer 30 new parts all buggy, badly integrated in career, 30 new bugs than 2 new parts only, 10 bugs fixed for good and better memory management. One thing which could be try is adding one or more "dummy"/holder process(es) which will just keep textures in their own memory space (~4 GB each maybe), which could be at least nice for people who have a computer with more than 4 GB ram.

@snjo: I just though about your utility module vs main FS module, what do you think about split FS and anim/tex & mesh swticher, as the last 3 features are not directly related to FS and FS is not related to them, it just use them. I know it will be more work to keep both plug-in working instead of one, but you can update more often/fix bug only in one, keeping the other working, without for example holding a feature or a fix in one side while working on the other side (fixing a big bug in mesh switcher for example, preventing releasing a crazy new FS release or the opposite)

Is this a bot ? No images found, post added ? What the point of having a picture showing nothing relevant and/or useful ? I think I'll put myself on top of some rockets and enjoy the peace in deep space... Thanks xytolv, but what is your definition of "optimal" ? (it may be useful, as I usually forgot staging when I add decoupler and engines in a random order KSP don't like too much).

ok. What do you think about using asteroids (and/or spawning mechanism or anything related to them) as base ? I know they're not the same as a body, and they might don't share all properties of such object but at least they have the basic ones (orbit, mass, shape, ...). I've not yet try Planet Factory but it looks like it is made to build new star system not editing existing one, I have to study this. EDIT: tried PF CE, too bad, it only allow creation of new system and it's quite not very intuitive, no way to just add a body to the KSP star system ? Too bad. And PF itself has been banned for good for a source code matter mostly.

Pretty hard to see what's you done wrong or don't do at all with just pic, solar panel need some work with object like engines or intakes to work properly. The link you give have all info needed to build a basic SP. And animation is a big topic on its own which is completely unrelated to SP, and a big part of anim is unrelated to KSP at all (making animated objects with your modelling program). If you want a good anim tutorial

Get some inspiration this week-end, here are some nose cones: They just need a paint job + some config tuning, the mk2 nose cone seems to alter badly the plane behaviour. damned I add work to all work I already have... inline air intakes are close to at least a first release, not as perfect I would like them to be but working as expected with a not too ugly texture.

@Kcreator: sorry if it has already asked before, could it be possible to add new bodies in addition to edit existing ones ? Even "simple" bodies like big asteroids for example.

Thanks for the update, the link to the changelog on top of the picture in the 1st post point to a not updated project on codeplex.

Unfortunately, no such model seems to work after having more than a given amount of members, for example, Debian model should work on paper and may have work for a while in the beginning (there is one project leader elected by "debian developpers", whose supposed to lead) But the fact shows a lot of flaws: some devs violate the whole validation process to put their early alpha buggy package into testing distribution (here "testing" doesn't mean full of more or less easy to spot bugs not yet found) leading to missing dependancies and lot's of serious issues, the project leader is just like a scares-crow who scare no-one, have no real power and do nothing, and the system has the heavy weight of a bureaucracy as a bonus ! "Dictatorship" seems a better way to make things work, at least consistently in one single way, bad or good. Such a dictator just have to care more about the project itself and listen just enough some advices from people around .

Glad you like it. You can move it with help of Kerbtown plug-in, see doc for that. Will you really need a road ? The slope is gentle enough to climb on it. Speed test range ? It may be very very verrrryyyyyyyyyy long and not so useful, you can't go over wheels strength (~50 m/s for stock wheels), try with a rocket engine). And no, no such thing.

A big movie company is working as we speak on an amazing and super accurate space movie, no name yet. What is it about ? We show, for 4 hours, people filling paperworks, designing components, preparing the mission, studying various trajectories, and finally do some tests on a few components. Amazing ! "The most accurate space movie ever !" (this is how they'll sell it)

It looks like you will do an airdrop platform as used to deliver vehicle or supplies to ground based troops (which could be use also in cargo planes in KSP the same way) I'm not sure bigger collider will be any help as I wrote above, but experiments have to be done to find the best/cheaper way to achieve your goal.

We have this thread (it is sticky in release sub-forum) We just need one moderator/people who are willing to care about it and update it regularly. In order to make it humanly possible and effective, admin/moderator/Squad could create a dedicated mailbox/shared forum account (shared among a few moderators willing to do this job). Modders release their thing, hen send a mail to this box/account with all data (link, version, date, compatibility, ...), thread is updated with the data (which could be in a standard format ). @Diazo: your idea is quite good but I have to say digging into release thread is also part of the game , finding some rare jewels among all those more or less precious stones or dirt is a game on its own. But knowing how people are and behave, such thread should be read only for everyone, with write right to only modders, quite a nightmare to manage in term of forum settings, we have no other choice than a team of moderators or reliable peoples with new role I guess. But modders have also to do their part of the job, posting an update notice/a workaround/anything people have to be aware about on the 504861844th page of a big release threads, letting some additional related content be buried in 6468484, 35644, 84511 and 33434344849th pages also is bad practice. People also should do it, how many time we've seen people in suggestion sub-forum asking for this to that which is included in number of mods ? Typical: solar panels, bigger or circular => there is mods for that. 3.75m, 5m parts => there is mods for that. bigger command pods => there is mods for that (I guess ). and so on. Regarding this, I have an idea and will post something on Add-on Requests and Support forum later.

That's notepad style text is hard to read , but the intakes on landing gears are a great idea ! FireSpitter include dedicated parts for such purpose (I know it's not stock, but wanting "stock only" can be ridiculous sometimes especially when using issues/"hidden features" which could be fixed in a further release).

@Mekan1k: it will be release very soon, I just have to polish a thing or two and do some testing. I have finally put a proper texture on it as you may have already noticed (low-res, but I prefer to keep the game as away as possible from the "danger zone" ). Don't forget my buildings are a bit "russian style" (huge & heavy, look at the WWII KV-2, the Hind family and the crazy big Antonov), there is more space on top than 4 stock KSC launchpads put together ! And why landing on it ? I have already thought of a mountain runway... not for the fake Maverick . Here it is, see 1st post, link added.

Great ! Very glad to see you still work on it, a "small" add-on which add a lot !

Thanks BahamutoD

Regarding downloads, I, myself usually download some mods but not install them right away, sometimes left one, two, ... n versions even before I paid them some attention, like KAX for example. Then I install a single mod on a test install for a few days/weeks/months, and then and only then, I install he mod on my main game. So, KAX can have a few more downloads without any more use. That's make such counter unreliable at all, without mentioning people redownloading a mod because they erase it by accident, or any other reason.

ok thanks. IMHO, this is VERY BAD ! It's kind of Microsoft programming style (="the average user is too stupid to understand" + doing thing behind the back of people on their behalf). The best way I see is like standard "shared" plug-in, ex FireSpitter, many mods use it and there is (shoud be) only one single file. I know it's not the same usage of course, so the config file style given before may be preferred, with maybe a global finding/parsing of configs like MM does.