Justin Kerbice

OK, thanks for answering, I would have been great to, at least, show them, even in a low-res form (I have to admit that's also a implicit part of my question )

I follow the move here to say it would be a shame to gave up so close to the finish line, these parts looks very good and need just a bit more tweaking/polishing. And perhaps less power for some "real world" technology engines, for the great fans of ":mad: it's cheating it's OP".

@snjo: I found a little issue on 23.5 with FS 6.3, these propellers have FS2ME: no right click info + no thrust displayed FS1TP: no thrust display too others propellers correctly show ex: 60 kN in the part window. Hope this help.

@mhoram: I've tried some of the launchers past few days and I don't like them that's much, use of many panels increase the critical parts count and it results in unstable rocket which tend to move or rotate unexpectedly, preventing to achieve a proper gravity turn I guess. And they looks like... "pure KSP" in the way Harvester define it, ie: amateur style rockets. They doesn't look too much to be trusted. As opposite to the Munshines which are really "on another planet". Struct connectors can be use even on parts which will be separated and they would prevent those parasite movements as the panels on their own are really not enough.

Hi, after the last announce here which is quite old now, nothing more has been added on this topic, so I wonder where are the winners ? Where are the winning logos ? There is this thread but it's just pointless guessing. Could it be possible those logos was so amazing that winners have been abducted and kerbalized ?

@snjo: incredible but does it means we can switch tex/content of tank AFTER launching the craft too ? I hope not (a LF tank can't be magically mutated to a Ox tank, or LF/Ox one or anything else)

Some people made it this way for spaceport nostalgics Now curse is spammed of spaceplane they believe your mod is spam and they ban your account forever. "You've been cursed !" By the way, could you add version in archive name (we have no clue which version we download otherwise) ? Use a user-friendly browser (= not IE/Chrome) and use adblock (for firefox) style add-on. Never get all those evil web ads stuffes on mediafire.

@tecknobabble: good. @Felbourn: could you update the initial post please (version supported + most recent version dl link) ? It's a bit confused and a single post somewhere will be sooner or later hard to find. And fixing the "space in mod dir" issue would be great. Thanks.

@any moderator who read this: could it be possible to make this thread sticky (at least for some months) as it is very useful and become to be "buried" on the forum. Unless someone won't like the idea. Thanks for making it sticky

@snjo: a little question about airbrakes, correct me if I'm wrong but as I see, you use a little trick to just rotate the part itself as a whole on its node attach point. So there is no way to make an airbrake with a usual animated part made by multiple meshes, right ? Or is there any other way to make a working airbrake using your animate module + FSairBrake module ? Last question, what do you think about compiling your plug-in against 0.23 KSP libs and provide the last release for KSP 0.23.5 and 0.23 (to be sure they both work) ? I know it would means also more work for you but even a "release without any kind of support" will be fine IMHO.

CFA updated to 0.2 (get it on first post), just have a look: (there is another pic in the album)

What do you mean exactly ? Could you be more specific please ? As I understand, this means use n unity gameobject, one for each convex pieces, each one with its own convex collider then all parented by a dummy gameobject (kind of meta-object or even a KSP craft/sub-assembly I may say, ie a tree of objects linked together) I have already an idea to avenge the poor rovers. Any example of such mod ? (regarding your signature, are you willing to pay of the hosting and all needs of spaceport ? What will prevent Squad even to mess up with KSP or stop it one day ? As I witness the evolution of the releases, I'm quite pessimistic, I can't believe people could blindly applause the 0.23.5 and its poor overall quality)

Sorry to read that , but what I can't understand is your data loss, did you work only online ? Don't have you the source code on your local harddrive to compile it ? By the way, the internet thing, especially online text editor (mal, forum, blog, ...), is the most unreliable tool ever made, nothing, including magnetic tape, is worth than that. Turning HTTP protocol into something is has not been designed for in the first place was a very bad idea, so ALWAYS work offline on your local computer, and save often.

@HoneyFox: could it be possible to remove z coordinate/change coordinate system as there is one more than needed, unless Kerbtown also use time or a strange 4D space reference (it looks like X=Z in term of axis). It's seriously confusing to use 4 coordinates system on a 3D world.

After a break, I come back and with the help from Porkjet, I have fix the size issue (weird thing), big thanks to him. Only the C part remain, I first started with 1m diameter cylinder as reference for engines, which was wrong, I'm redoing it with 1.25m diameter cylinder.

Kerbin City, to use the right name.

Set 1 patch 1.1 added + a note

@BahamutoD: a bit off-topic, sorry, do you think it would be possible to "fix" weird camera behaviour under structures (both EVA/not-EVA) ?

You forgot to mention contrails Why rockets engines and jet engines produce it but no clouds are there, even just a few (which could be a user setting, cause some gfx card have trouble with smoke-like thing as I remember the NV 9600M GT have serious FPS drop in GTA3 when clouds were on screen). We can also have high thin clouds which could be some rendering tricks (visible only from low altitude/high altitude) kind of skybox thing.

Thanks for the release Porkjet .

Why should be such hard as you think ? a convex box collider can collide a convex sphere one on some angle which will be similar to a non convex collider hitting something like terrain. Who knows ? And as mod = "not a Squad business" there's almost not a chance such issue will be seriously investigated 'til someone at Squad create such a case.

Hi modders or everyone else, I don't think regular users may have some interest here as it purely wha we can't do know with KSP/Unity due to over limited colliders as highlighted here. Convex shapes may have been good enough in the past, when only cylinders, cones, bells and some boxes are enough, but this limit is a so big constraint that we can't do more various and interesting shapes. So, I ask here if there is any tiny little chance in a close future we may have more freedom in shape design without the fear of encountering various random crashes of the game in a quite unpredictable fashion ? For the record, I have play with non convex colliders on my Rover 'N' Others parts set, set allowcollision to true also and creating some assembly with them works, playing around is ok. But next time when loading a save game which have various vessels built with such parts lead to crash (the VAB/SPH scene is very very very slow, so slow that sometime unity engine is stuck and windows claim the game doesn't respond), in the log, there are plenty of line like this: (more than spamming in fact) And many time games just decide to crash without such slowdown. Also, such crashes appears when I use multiple convex colliders on a part created with many meshes. So the choice we've got for now is: -using 1 single damned convex collider and having ridiculous parts which work "well", -using more convex colliders or not convex ones and suffer from random crashes, but with nicer parts By the way, stock parts colliders are really bad (when they exists, z400 battery is weird when trying to put a small solar panel on it) and have to be improve (flat parts are "inside" the tank for example without mentioning the weird angle with symmetry). Thanks for reading.

Please, can someone tell me in which year we are right now ? Such ridiculous boundaries were even not there many years ago (~30 years ago !!) when the first 3D games appears (only wireframe, then solid faces colour without textures, then poor quality pictures on faces, ...). Great ! The next unity release might be 8 bit support only, 10 polygon max per meshes, 256 colours tex max.

@Cpt. Kipard: I'm wrong or you're in defensive mode ? (think a bit about it), it's nothing personal you know, just some constructive comments on what you've done or not done, that's it. I'm not the -> teacher who gives you back your homework with a big circled Z on it (or a capital C, which stands for Crap, as Z is for Zorro ). And I don't ask why you use an alpha channel (which by the way I don't mind), it's just importing pic with alpha chanel in Gimp without special care completely messed-up what you've got (it's happen consistently with all PNG with alpha too like some stock tex), didn't dig that's much on this issue. And before I forgot, I saw you're kind of "tight" with convex colliders, any particular reason for that ? I believe using non convex colliders with at least unity 4.3.3 in KSP (0.23, not tested on 0.23.5), can lead to very bad crash (and as it's not stock, it's kind of "it's not a KSP bug", despite error log cleary show something's bad somewhere in the game). But here too, I have to dig more. I'll really need a very good shovel ! Or even a mole .

According to this article (from the author of new KSC buildings), sketchup can be used, but it need to exactly know what you're doing to avoid end with a mess like the "house" shows as example in the article.