nikokespprfan

A asteroid, for the game, is a part. Crafts are a bunch of parts together. So multiple asteroid parts in one asteroid craft is also a possibility. If the game would spawn such crafts in addition to the single-part-asteroids, you could encounter this in a stock game. Also, asteroids could be broken up, since it is multiple parts.

. As luck would have it......

As long as they are not too big, I am for it.

That is maybe where the fuzziness that cantab suggested can come in, you never get outright failure, you never get punished, but there might be some things for which it is a good idea to put some redundancies on your craft. I know that you want KSP to always work reliably, but players expect experimental parts to at least have something funky. (At least I do.)

Yes this is how it appears to me. I went through a lot of trouble with Unity Assets Explorer (version 1.3) trying to get it, so there might be something wrong with it, .

http://imgur.com/9WZVQNf

I am trying to make textures from the stock head textures, but is it normal that the stock textures look as if there is alot of noise on it?

Well, if you want some, there is a mod you can get for it. (Yes, it is still 1.0.5, I don't know whether it still works in 1.1.0.)

I tried to do it with KSP_win in the same folder as disunity-master, as well as with it inside the disunity folder, but that doesn't work (although it might also be something else), so I assume I need one of the many indivudual files within my KSP_win. I have been looking for it, but I don't know where to find the file I need. This is what I did.

which leads to: https://github.com/ata4/disunity. ____________________ I wanted to look at the default head textures as well, but I have no idea how to use this tool. Can someone explain it to me?

I took a little while before I knew what you referenced to, . 1- I am going to add to that, the R&D building and the Administration Building, for consistency's sake. I wonder why the flag pole is in there as well. 2- Same as with the first idea, I advise you also put it on the bugtracker, it is a place where players can report bugs, so SQUAD can look at them. . 3- Since your request is about the way the fairing model is shown, rather than the UI, I think the suggestion having its own thread would suit it better .

This thread and specifically this post gave me an idea: This goes along with the latitude and altitude idea posted in this thread. The thing is that it would increase the amount of unique experiments way to much. My idea to solve that issue is to add a secondary gameplay mechanic to deal with that problem, while the primary mechanic stays untouched. So this is my proposal: Climate modelling -You get science for each of the possible combinations of instrument/biome/situation/body (as they currently do) -With each experiment, the game remembers more complex circumstances like latitude, altitude, time of day and others. -If two experiments only differ in said complex circumstances, they will only be unique if you put it in a Lab. -You unlock this Lab-functionality in the R&D facility upon unlocking the Lab itself, in the mid-game stage. -Researching, whether you do it at home in the R&D facility or in a lab, takes time (as they currently do). -The lab is for researching the climate of biomes, and you get additional science based upon the completeness of the scientific knowledge of a biome. -Every unique experiment contributes to this knowledge after it has been researched. -The amount of unique experiments researched, the completeness of scientific understanding and the science do not have to scale linearly. -There is much more to do on a planets surface, namely experimenting, but only in mid-late game.

I think we should have a recources app in the craft editor, this would fit into that.

Look at the post below. | | | \/

Ignore this post.

well, you could put up "balloons" with vacuum inside. They would be crushed by the air pressure, so they have to be reinforced. I do not know though if the balance point between what pressure you can reinforce against and how deep you need to go for enough lift is in the realm of possibility.

Look what I have here, secretly hiding among the torches and pitchforks, A stack of these: Keep on smashing them guys!

Try right-clicking on the part icon, wonders will occur. In the R&D facility though, it doesn't work.

What could be interesting though, is a navball marker displaying the normal vector of the slope. That way you can see on the navball if your landing site is level enough for landing.

Noted down. But I can't seem to find the place with the two scroll bars in the VAB. The thing that shows ISP and other info has only one scroll bar, which is controllable via the scroll wheel.

I understand your point in that a reshaped craft can cause problems. That is not what I meant, I proposed a way to circumvent the reshaping of crafts you described altogether, and I messed up explaining it, apologies for that. That proposal might not work , I am aware of that (I am not an expert in coding, I'm just curious to this topic ). What I thought the docking module would do while docking is the following: -Two docking ports become close. -The game registers that. -The magnets turn on and a force will pull the two ports together. -the docking ports get in a position where the docking can finish. -the game registers that, and as result creates the link and stops the force pulling the things together. -the ships are docked -(the actual process will most likely be more complicated and involve more steps) The ship reforming you talked about I assumed to be due to the magnets pulling the docking nodes together so that it can make the link. What I proposed for the modified version of the docking module is, that as soon as the physics start, you start by saying to the game, "parts in the right position to make a docking link = true", essentially skipping over the part where the magnet force is even created, preventing that from reshaping anything. Then the game can make the desired link, without the ship reforming. After that, no problems could happen, as a surface attached part that you offset to leave space in between parts, or to clip inside that part, also doesn't cause problems either. By doing this, the reshaping could be circumvented, or so I assumed. That was how I understood the case from what was said in the thread, and from the behaviour of docking ports in the game. It was based upon my own assumptions, though.

Why would it? OK I can imagine that it would when using the exact same docking module, but can't you modify the module in such a way that the parts are connected without them being pulled together? You do not need the docking magnet to create the link, I suppose.

Yes agree, this is a game where one learns from ones mistakes, this would be a helpful tool for that.

Well, the game could know the upper and lower boundaries of each SOI and the time in between reaching lowest SOI and highest SOI. Maybe if the game knows the SOI border height as a periodic function of time, wherever the game asks for that border height, it will get a function instead of a constant value. The time is known by the computer, and thus the output should work as expected. But then again I have more knowledge of maths than of coding, so I might be wrong. You could also have this only affect certain bodies, just like asteroids do not have gravity and planets are not movable. Another simplification could be SOI seasons. Instead of having constantly changing SOI, you divide the orbit in different seasons, and during each season the SOI height is the same. This is just some brainstorming though.

I think I don't understand you. Does it mean that it has multiple root parts, or that it roots through just one of the docking ports (destroying that one would let the pieces fly apart, even although there is another docking port), or something else? Can you explain how a surface attach is different from a strut link.