Justin Kerbice

Thanks . As far as I see, it's similar to what I do, I'll explain later in a more appropriate location. Something which may be usefull for readers here, if the generated layer is too dark, it's better to lower opacity (or a pure white color may looks grey for example).

@Nazari1382: your VTS command seat is a nice and very good looking but it has quite serious issue regarding kerbals (am I the only one to have such issues ?). Going out of warp can make them ejected from it and also some rough movements can also do that (structural link failure ...), in one of my attempt, I even got a kerbal frozen/petrified on the ground (input lock claiming uncontrollable "vessel") using a stack decoupler. It looks like something confuse KSP badly.

that's a hell lot's of parts ! Some are amazing ! I have used your structural parts for a while and annoying issues with resizing stock is attachment (I guess node_attach thing issue) and/or colliders, it completely mess-up the parts sadly . It's possible a small collider/part gap in the stock part became huge when sized up. But the mega solar-panel collection (ALT-EMxxxx parts) are good if they are considered as a single one by unity engine. I've tried to make a tube/circular solar panel, but the module only allow one flat surface to receive sunlight :/.

I have the same issue too, tested on Mun and Kerbin (especially near the former KSC). What a success for a 1st attempt ! Too bad if it'll be lost, your wheels are very great (IMHO better than man others because of their wide suspension arms with low vertical travelling and good torque settings). It looks like to be a collider issue of some sort, maybe someone who have some good experience with wheels could help.

Oh my rocket ! It was so cool to have magic fairy dust to lift us from the ground I never do the conversion like this but yes, I do realize 1000 m/s is quite a speed (I used to use knots in aircraft before). And yes now we have a "classic" jet fighter engine, but we don't have everything which goes around matching its "almost" accuracy. (almost cause KSP is greatly limited in term of engine/fuel simulation so even with the exact same specs, the physics are not the same, so the final behaviour will not be the same)

It's what I've used for the test, to be sure, I have overwrite all files with 1.1pre, it's not hard here it's more than McLane can bear in an entire life of dying harder , the turbofan became seriously useless, before, a pair of them can throw a light enough craft over 1000 m/s easily, with your CR2 Ramjet on the other hand, kerbal's "jet fighters" become easy targets (at 100% throttle, just below 10000 m, I got 13.4 kN, with tow turbofans in afterburner, the "plane" only fly at 186 m/s with a very low up speed). Planes are now as slow as bureaucracy Jeb will get back to his rockets .

What does it means ? The brand new thing Squad set up is not ultra-super-amazingly-good ?

I saw this issue myself with some stock parts, some models are duplicated (dummies for example, which may come from unity transforms).

@camlost: the way "Turbofan Jet"/CR2-Ramjet works is confusing, AFAIU, it shouldn't work on launch as opposite to its stock counterpart, but only when speed is >= mach 0.3, that's correct ? Cause for now, it just say "kerosene deprived" as the flame-out explanation I completely forgot this tiny words on the contract (> mach 0.3) and ready to kick it a lot to make it start . And IMHO, kerosene consumption may be realistic but KSP is not, so it makes plane building quite harder unless using RATO style with rocket/booster drop (to avoid to have a too heavier plane which will never take-off)

Maybe it's me, maybe it's my monitor settings or maybe it's the picture itself and/or compression but it's definitely not so obvious ! One lead is the colormap used, I remember the mess made with IE (in 2009) with CYMK pictures, firefox was ok, but IE display blue-ish pics, seriouly a lot more messed up than your tex. Unity could also do some change to the colormap while converting tex.

@Gaius: I have bad news for you, I trully believe RF (tested also with AJE, advanced jet engines, which may cause some issues or not) issues have not fully been fixed, example: a small probe, a circular air-intake on top, a FL-T400 1/2 filled of kerosene, a turbojet engine and an infamous launch clamp to hold all the parts. 1. tank is magically filled by kerosene from nowhere ! (thanks Jeb), 2. jet engine flame-out upon ignition cause no kerosene left (stupid engine ) All with various pump settings. I 1st tried a tricky example to stress the pumps: same as before but a bi-coupler, two FL-T200 (set to hold kerosene, but left empty) and two turbojet engines instead of the single turbojet engine. Also there, tanks are magically filled (I thought resource bar was not updated as it should but hard to say as-is), engines flame-out. KSP 0.23 and very few mods, no other playing with resources or tanks. This pump idea was just perfect especially knowing I'm very talented to design ships with bad fuel flow so I hope it'll work well. EDIT: here are the good news . I was wrong and fooled by the launch clamp feature which refill fuel tanks (forgot this). The turbojet engine issue seems to be AJE one. Sorry for the trouble.

Good, would you mind posting a side by side comparison of two tex just to see the issue ?

Still working on it and try to sort out those damned scale/location issue (mk2 parts are really weird, the weirdest of all !). Especially from Blender, through FBX format export, reimport in 3dsmax, both set to system unit meter, files have unit set to cms, and sizes are not what it should be (always 3dsmax is good only to operate with itself, interoperability is not a know word at autodesk, a shame !) I just take the source part ( stock mk2 fuselage), and what's going out of the pipe is smaller (only on 2 dimensions, length, which is height from the model point of view, is ok) than stock. In the meantime, I'll crash a few thousands of mk2 parts and feed the kraken till its death, it may help .

Thanks and you're welcome. Not sure what you wish to display with the pictures .

I don't know what was goind on on that time but I was wrong I think, as I've done a more thorough test today, with all four possible conditions (with-without kerbals, with-without kerbtown launch site), and all works as expected, no issue. One other issue I encounter is warping while on a suborbital flight on Mun, cause kerbal to be stretched and ejected (ripped off would be more appropriate ) from the seat on unwrap and uncontrollable at all (but here is KJR which cause some trouble as one input lock is KJRLoadLock), I use warpunlocker (10x near ~20km altitude)

Good point ! I would like to know more about this AO baking. Usually, I just create a shading map which greatly improve the volume look of the model (in opposite to "flat look" seen in some parts ere or there). @Talisar: have you, or someone else, tried it with FAR, cause unless for mostly role-players, cargo bays are basically useless in KSP, in term of efficiency. Don't you think so ?

Hi, I've seen KSP add its own version number to craft file as follow: What the point of having a "binary style" version checking (craft_version=game_version => ok, else ko) ? I've tried some crafts made with 0.23.5 on 0.23 and it's work, despite KSP don't want it. A better version control + versioning itself could be use. To keep thing as simple as possible, parts can include their first version appearance, example: in 0.23.5: FL-T400 fuel tank can have version=0.7.3 (or 0.18, the last compatible version, ie 0.16) and Kerbodyne S3-3600 : version=0.23.5 So in 0.23.5, if I use just FL-T400 tank + some old parts, my craft can have version=0.22 (assuming there is a part introduced the first time in KSP 0.22) loading it in prior version of the game might work except for all < 0.22 (0.21 and older), which is fair. With such system, which is very simple and reliable (as long as it's human mistake free, which can always happen), there is no need to edit craft files by hand "at our own risks" .

it's really cool ! And I really have to try B9 ! The cutest plane I've seen so far , good job !

For what is worth, this contest is just about learning and sharing various idea around one single feature idea. So a "mere box" with a good texture (perhaps the details may have been modelled too) is as fine as the "crazy" living creature made by snjo, especially knowing this case is the most realistic devices made, with the one by LandTLS, knowing how deep space can be hazardous to even the strongest materials. This is not "do as complicated as it is possible to do" contest, isn't' it ?

Interesting but... waste of time too, what people seems to forgot is career mode is yet an early draft of what it should be (unless I'm completely wrong, it more looks like "mmm... doing this this and this as this for now, we'll see what we could do with it later" than a very carefully made and thoroughly planned career as the meaningless tech tree suggest). It could also mean "doing this so bad than there should be at least one people in the community will do something good we could use". And if I'm wrong and if it's really the final release of it, please someone from squad tell me so.

You know, it's a test release after all, so I do testing, even improper, incorrect, crazy assemblies. I even wasn't aware of this "springy connection", maybe that's why my two attempts to send something in Kerbin using cargo bay made the rocket going sideways . Are you sure about your forward/backward joints and the issue they create ? As Squad didn't release so much informations of their internals stuffes, it's not easy to know what's going on under the hood. Thanks for the tips, and for the assembly guide you've posted later.

Looks good, except adding version number to the folder inside GameData may create serious troubles. (if it's for people who're too lazy to read install instructions and don't remove previous version when they asked to do so... they can be just taped on a booster and send where they don't bother you anymore)

Try with 15 kerbals/vessels/debris in the vicinity, then you'll think "why such a mod doesn't exists ?"

Why not keeping them ? A bonus maybe Mini-Cargo for small/tiny rovers, probes, small parts. Maybe not useful but funny. 3.75 is more close to the old C-47 or the C-27, C-130 might be at least 5m, and as you're on this way, why not something bigger ? (up to 10m or more, rounded to a KSP "standard" size or not), damned it will mean bigger wings, bigger engines, bigger everything !

Nice replica of the famous space shuttle (the best so far) but I wonder why is there liquid fuel boosters (are they not supposed to be like stock solid fuel ones ?) and going into EVA means... can't go back into the shuttle ! (hatch issue ? I've tried on both side, no hatch, even no "invisible" ladders). And the shuttle itself have a serious lack of fuel tanks making it a lot less fun on its own.