Gaalidas

There's really no better way to pit this... Holy Cra... err... excrement! It looks like you really did reinvent the wheel, starting with humanity's most basic, and ultimate failure, of a not-quite-round shape. That thing would shake your brains out at high speed. That swoop looks awesome, but there is no way in whatever version of eternal suffering you believe in that I'm going to drive anything like that with anything relating to structural failure turned on. Maybe it's time to invest in some of those B9-style invisible struts. Unless you're going for that crazy stock thing I keep hearing about. I think it's just a load of hocus pokus they made up to keep us from finding their secret ram usage limit. I sure showed them. Not keeping this up-past-his-bedtime slightly-ill-and-probably-delirious space-sim abuser down.

Someone just tried to load that hypothetical piece of straw that broke Jebediah's metaphorical back. If they had spines anyway... obviously they don't, considering how they bounce so well. Just the minor problem of occasionally being perforated and going -poof- out of existence.

I find it rather hilarious that we started by telling lo-fi his wheels are awesome, and now (months down the line) we're setting up pod-races.

so, what was the bug? I'd love to know if I was being affected by it... I'm afraid I know too little to notice.

We hide solid booster pills in the intern's lunch snacks for a laugh every day. It never gets old.

I wouldn't mind having the original scale parts available for larger drones as well as the tiny ones. It's becoming a little too small for my taste, and the constructional issues would be a serious pain.

Blue aliens? How disgusting. Why can't alien life be a healthy green like the rest of us? I'll bet it's because they deny themselves that healthy dose of radiation that a kerbal gets from licking the RTGs. If they licked more RTGs, they'd be much nicer to look at.

y'know, if you let them lick the RTGs long enough, they'll start to glow ever so slightly. It has an amazing calming effect on the idiots... erm... I mean scientists in the lab.

That's awesome. I do so love it when I get my workflow with something down to that magical spot where I can almost do it without thinking.

In the meantime we can just build a bracket that provides the right mounting orientation that, itself, attaches to the bottom of a craft. It's not that difficult with the standard I-beams and such.

This person speaks the truth. Paths for models/textures/you-name-it should begin from the gamedata folder, which means that "Gamedata" is not included in the path. You need to pretend that the root of your path is "Gamedata" much like the root of your hard drive is "C" (or whatever you use). When referencing something relative to the root, you do not reiterate the root in the path. The final piece of the puzzle is that you need to use forward slashes, and not the backslash like we are used to using on windows/dos-based operating systems. EDIT: Awesome, that looks very usable. One thing I wonder about is if you could mount both the props and the mini-engines for flexibility within a single flight. I'm sure with part-clipping you could make it happen, though I am unsure if both engines would work correctly in that case (taking the visual impact out of the equation for the time being). EDIT #2: Okay, my mind is going nuts now. I could see those arms and props being up-scaled a bunch and used on kerbal-sized crafts. Sure, we have ducted fans already out there somewhere, but you can never have too many option on the visual side of things. I suppose one could just rid a command seat on a few beams to the bottom of that thing and turn it into a prop-powered flight-pack.

I was just wondering where the idea for surface-mountable tracks went off to. I've had a few designs recently that could have used a track system that could be attached to the bottom of the craft. In fact, those mole tracks would be excellent candidates, just need to make that surface on the top be the anchor for all of the animation and stick an attach node on it. Now if we could just have a tweakable that would switch the mounting-orientation on the fly without having to produce a separate part. Oh dear, I think I just opened up another metaphorical can of beans. Plus, we really do need some longer tracks. a single track part that could support the entire length of a DSR hull itself would be fantastic.

I just have to pipe in with the issue of engines with a different mix than the default LF 0.9 - OX 1.1 ratios. Can this mod take into account the fuel-intake ratios of the currently running engines? I can see this being useful in designs that are not made for a specific purpose only, such as reusable crafts where they may be forced to cross through an atmospheric area more than once or twice in a single flight. This way they are not stuck with loss of engine usage, but still having excess fuel of the wrong type in the tanks, and having to find a way to dump it all manually. Just need to get it modular enough to handle any other fuel types we modders can come up with, and all of their strange mix ratios.

I'm not holding my breath on this one. It's really fallen behind, in fact the other threads started by this guy have sorta fallen behind the times. But hey, there are still crazy things popping up out of nowhere that no one expected, so it could be the guy in change is just working on his own and hoping to break out with a completed project when no one is looking. It's like a popular singer as he starts to decline. He'll go into retirement, wait until his glory days are just beginning to fade and news of his death has been over-exaggerated and then -BAM!- He breaks out with something huge and suddenly he's bigger than ever. Then he dies of a drug overdose and no one believes he's really dead because he's faked it before... but that last part is depressing and I should have stopped while I was on top. I sorta suck that way.

Or that node toggler from the new B9 package, used specifically on the huge HX parts. This experiment also showed that a few of the parts might benefit from some tweaked positions for both attach node types to better align with the visual position of the connecting part of the model. For instance, the side-mounted repulsors have the center of their surface and stack nodes set a little higher than the center of the area of the model that would be expected to be the attachment spot. I don't know how that would affect the attachment of the part though, just an observation. It's a little like some of the bobcat wheels and landing legs. Those things were huge and looked awesome if you're going for "nuttier than modern sci-fi" but their attachment nodes were in such a horrible position that trying to surface attach them to your craft was a huge pain. The attach node was at the center of that side of the model, but the modeled part that should be the attachment point on the hull was 10 feet above it. I tried adjusting those nodes in the past, but it was a real pain without knowing what the scale was. I'll experiment a bit more if I get the chance. As it is, the stack node hasn't interfered with the placement of the parts unless a stack node in the same orientation was placed on the part I was attaching to, and sicne most stack nodes will be aligned with the... uhh... stack, well... I see little chance for anything out of whack to happen. Still, might have to add compatibility for a toggler anyway. Oh, and the node size is up for debate. I picked what deemed to be fair, and bumped it up and down based on the side of the part I was dealing with (using the standard M1 wheel size as a measuring stick, so to speak.) From what I can tell, none of the KF parts are displaying improperly. It's the rest of your UI that has the black boxes and such. I'd say it's either a memory limit being approached, or something happening with the DDS plugin. Honestly, I've been using DDS plugin for some time now for a few textures that benefit from that format, and I have experienced no issues. Especially baffling is the fact that the textures being messed with are internal KSP textures, loaded from shared asset files, and already in a DDS format. They don't even need the plugin to load from that format because of the internal-ness of their implementation within Unity. So, I have my doubts that it is related to the DDS plugin either. I really have nothing more to add to that. YES! Oh gawd yes! I've been asking for something along those lines literally FOREVER! That is the one problem that has always faced me when making off-world bases. It's near impossible to find reliably flat ground anywhere, and I refuse to settle for "almost perfect" when it comes to stabilizing and securing my structures and their various connections.

All I can say is... better get ready for a long nap while that thing takes off.

-ripping noise- What was that..?

How can this be dated "Nov 11" when it's only November 4th today?

I'd steal that thing if I were Jeb too. Looks like it would be quite the blast, both literally (when I crashed it) and metaphorically. Hey, lo-fi, I've been experimenting with something to make the wheels/repulsors/whatever more compatible with rover bodies that provide stack nodes for mounting the wheels. I copied the coordinates for the attach node and put them on a second node defined as a stack node. I then changed the attachment rules to allow it to be stack-attached and initial tests are very positive. So, in the most basic terms, the part now has a stack node in the same position and orientation as the attach node so it can be attached to those rover-wheel nodes in the same way that it would be surface-attached when no nodes are present. Here's an example of what it ends up looking like: [B]From the Medium Wheel: [/B]node_attach = 1.4, 0.55, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0 node_stack_001 = 1.4, 0.55, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1 I've actually tested this method with all the wheels I have installed on my machine, and so far no problems detected. Inspiration came from the ASET wheels (still waiting for that config btw!) which attach using stack nodes.

I can already see myself flying a bunch of these with that formation-flying mod (whatever it's called, my brain is soup right now) all together. It'll be awesome... and then my laptop will melt. But it'll be awesome still!

That's how it goes. The least buggy creation is always the first iteration. After that it's all about squashing bugs and replacing them when twice as many. It's a wonder the kerbal race ever made it out of the primordial snack bag in the first place. On a happier note, I gave the water repulsor functionality a go earlier this evening and everything seems to be in order.

The repulsors are definitely a bit twitchy on launch. Quantum struts are known for their oddities, such as being able to stabilize a platform in mid-air without anything to hold it up when the struts are turned on while in flight. (I think that one was fixed, but I haven't tried it myself.) Those KAS winches are a little buggy sometimes... you've got yourself quite a pickle there with all those different things adding up. Not to mention the fact that launch clamps create a tiny bit of force when they decouple which could cause problems, especially when they are facing each other in close proximity and at that strange angle. I wouldn't give up on it now, but i might take it in bursts with long breaks in between so you don't go nutty.

On the up-side, a launch pad that size could accommodate an HX-sized mega-monstrosity. Or a medium-sized city. Take your pick.

Now that's what I'm talking about. If you succeed, it could be a way for us to possibly add the steering functionality to any wheel we can find out there that can be mounted to the part that handles what you're describing without changing to original wheel's configs. The options are endless.

That was actually all my .craft files, my persistence file, and the parts all combined. I have a lot of prototypes, some never even tested.