TiktaalikDreaming

I'm inclined to think that it could unduly complicate things. Both for poor old Vitas and for the end users. I'll freely admit to really bad git-foo, and I struggle to find the downloads on github released mods some times. And git has had a long time to sort that out. Adding a feature to spacedock that could complicate finding the right download would confuse users, and result in users with dev editions they didn't want etc. And let's not forget that would need more server space. If I throw more money at patreon, my wife will bash me up.

Still have the Kerbanaut (stolen from @PeterEdwardson's rigged cycles Kerbal http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/86386-rigged-kerbal-3d-model/) size wrong, but getting closer to a scene. Also now have a screen shot of the same craft;

5m Pod, Cycles render, 2048x2048, using Squad's Mk1-2 pod, and Mk25 Chute, plus 6 sets of the LT-2 Landing legs, plus three parts from my Mod Pods mod. Needs a high poly Jeb or Val.

Or just add to those nodes of they exist. I always try to minimise required mods in favour of changing things of those mods are there.

No news, except I discovered the cycles rendering engine in blender and made this thingy

Just thought I'd share this. I discovered Blender's Cycles rendering recently. This is two mod pod parts, stacked, no extra polygons, using the texture maps as is, just replaced the material for the ladder rungs with a PBR copper.

I have considered adding it's own nodes on the end Of CTT. They are a tad more extreme than other parts on the same nodes. But I've never messed with tech tree things, even though they're not exactly rocket science.

I just updated the TD edition for updating parts and plugin. There's no real reason to update the base version just yet, but I thought I'd drop a note in this thread.

UPDATED Rolled back to 1.2.2 (from the 1.2.9 prerelease) so I could recompile and get the updated bits n bobs out to people. AKA I caved in to wanting to update before 1.3, because the engine parts are now perfectly happy without the upper stages. Updates; Plugin; Main change is to update the max number of different pulse unit types, as each loader type counts differently, as do the yields. So to have 6 yield sizes, with three different supplies (magazine, 10m loader floor, 80f loader floor) I need 6x3 types, which is more than the original set limit of 10. Also, adjusted the scaling for atmosphere. It was roughly proportional to the cube root of density, but after some research it's both a bit more complex (depends a bit on bomb yield) and should be the square of the cube-root (aka power 2/3rds) of density. It should also scale with temperature (in reverse), but I'll need to do some math/gas physics to see if that manages to cancel out. Parts; All parts have been rescaled for 78.125% This will break existing craft. Several parts have been renamed, this will break existing craft. 78.125% is picked so that it's vaguely near the recommended Kerbal scale of 64%, and so the lower spine diameter now matches a standard kerbal size (size2 aka 2.5m). 3.2m was a bit awkward, and 2.048m wasn't a lot better (even if it did make it clear all the numbers heading towards it were powers of 2 adjusted by powers of 10). Complete rework of the pulse unit magazines. Much saner re-use of mesh and texture. Values all changed to result of rescaling. I'm not saying you have to, but those size2 batteries now stack nicely on top of the round magazines. Complete re-texturing and revamp of loader floors for the 10m and 86foot Orions. They now come in the full set of 6 pulse unit yield. Labels are re-used from magazines. Retexture of 10m and 86foot Orion engines. Payload interfaces for the 86f Orion are retextured and stack symmetry enabled for stack nodes. Payload interfaces for the 10m Orion have not yet been retextured, only stack symmetry added, and some scaling changed.

Just to be clear, there's a significant effect from atmospheric denisity that's significantly more dramatic than the specific impulse loss chemical rockets experience. Launching a "nuclear pulse device" under water, where "atmospheric density" is roughly 830 times sea level (at ~20C) would result in god knows what effects. You may be (with any luck) saved the fireball effects, but succumb to some serious impulse. Now, I have no idea if KSP models water density, or if my call to this.vessel.atmDensity returns water density if they do. But I do know that if it does all that, then you'd be getting a hell of a kick from each nuke. Because the code has been modelling atmospheric effects since just before it stopped working (unrelated, I think, maybe). The exact details may change on that, as I find more details of how impulse scales with air density. But at sea level, the impulse expected is about 10-14 times what it is in a vacuum. The effect in water would be nasty. Although, as I said, I have no idea just how bad it'd be in KSP at the moment. PS: I wrote this at the beginning of the day, and forgot to send, because I got sidetracked looking up scaling factors. Seems the impulse would be roughly proportional to Density^(2/3), but adjusted by temperature as well due to speed of sound changes. Which suggests underwater pulse being ~88 times as strong as atmospheric. Which is about 10 times what it is in vacuum. The current plugin uses cube root though (wild guess at the time), so you're "gettin orf easy!". :-)

Fake internet points for everybody!!! :-)

the minaltitude is the orbit safeguard, and yes, afaik it's a balance thing. That doesn't stop you changing it. The lower it goes, the more the drive is "cheating". of course. But you're installing an alcubierre drive that doesn't require a significant fraction of the universe's mass (down from early estimates of roughly equivalent) converted to negative mass. So there's a bit of cheatiness inferred by using it at all.

And I've decided the next update (aiming for ksp v1.3) will be scaled differently (again). Still aiming at something around the x0.64 as suggested by NathanKell as a general Kerbal scale, but also aiming at part compatibility. So, the engine and lower sections will actually end up being 78.125%, which is an odd number, but it sets the 3.2m lower spine to match 2.5m parts. So, you can then do things like; I'm still deciding what scale for the upper sections, but they'll either aim for just being the same size, ie, 2.5m, or the size1.5 that some mods use, 1.875m. But leaning a bit more towards 2.5m, for greater general compatibility.

Never a truer word was spoken about translations.

Orions are great for lift off, but they are awful at landings. So the Saturn upper stage is for landing somewhere, obviously.

Not sure if that's continued sarcasm, so I'll assume it's not. @Ranchoth knows that. Twas a joke. Or I misread sarcasm into his post where it was not intended. On a related note I should make some decouplers for the beast.

Cool thanks. Also, thanks for it being a cut and paste so this daft person can see he could have gone to the same dropdown. :-) I'm probably going to attempt some part description translations to have in place for whatever the solution ends up being.

Has someone got a list of which languages are currently supported? As modders, even if we rely on "quality" google translate, we will probably need to at least populate the set of languages for anything we use localization for.

I'd share some pics of development craft, but I've been working in 1.2.9, so that means no KJR (although I should check if there's a dev version). So the craft make it to the launch pad, then tend to launch in various directions.

The ksp ddsifier thing doesn't flip the image like gimp does. I use gimp a lot, and will use it for opening dds files, but I always export in tga and then ddsify.

The UV map is linked in the second texture slot on the ksp bumped material types, and had to be marked as a normal map type texture in the properties of the texture.

.

I was going to hop on and say a small nose gear is entirely possible as a new part, but have been completely distracted by the imgur album actually functioning in the forum. That's been broken for so long I'd almost forgotten the forum used to have the embedded albums.

Yeah, it does. The joys of floating point math.

I kinda missed the hype about this, have been caught up with some mod updates and that pesky real life stuff. But. I feel I should just say, I got this game on special during 0.8 times for some money I can't even remember. It's had issues, maybe is a tad less polished than some big studio would put out. But, it's also by far, the best piece of gaming software I've ever purchased. Not to overrate it or anything, but it changed my life (well, it shunted my hobbies about quite a bit). And, for all that, it's always been a learning experience. About rocketry, about how to actually fly those things, the logistics of putting craft on other planets, and for me, how to work with a 3D program, and C#, and Unity3D, and make mods. Would I pay for an expansion? Kell yes. I've threatened just about anyone I know (who doesn't have a copy) to buy it for them. Pretty much so I can throw more money at it. And a chance of hooking someone (not everyone gets hooked, believe it or not). I won't shy from buying an expansion. Expanding the game like this is how you get a continued revenue stream to support development. Did people think their once off purchases would keep Squad going forever?