InsaneDruid

Its harder in KSP because our orbital velicity is rather tiny while athmosphere is rather large compared to real world proportions. Real rockets spent much longer just pushing nearly sideways without the excessive vertical velocity resulting from the early parts of the trajectory after coming out of the denser athmosphere. In ksp, either you take a rather shallow trajectory so that your vertical speed isnt that much after you reached around >40000m or you can also just dip the nose under the horizon and kill the vertical speed this way, after you are out of the denser atmo. Currently i experiment whith scaling my proton down in performance and if i do this by decreasing the ISP of the engines to match a burn time of around 0.64 of the original rocket (thrust is original*0.64^3) rather than increasing the weight of the engines, then she nearly does the single burn to orbit automatically. Just a sliight nose-down here and then to adjust the time to APO and booom.

On a side node, I would highly recommend using the "new" node definitions with actual empties instead of fiddling with coordinates in a cfg. Just place an empty (in unity or you modelling software) where the node shall be, align its axis correctly (for blender it’s just the y-axis pointing in the direction a part should attach FROM, i.e. nodes on top of a tank have their y-axis pointing DOWN and nodes at the bottom point UP, then export as fbx with applied transform and as “-z forward / y up”) In unity this will lead to the z-axis pointing in the direction TO the place where a part will attach, i.e. UP for top nodes and DOWN for bottom nodes) and your cfg would be like: NODE { name = engine // any name, just for referencing transform = Stage2_NodeEngine // name of the empty size = 3 // size of the node method = FIXED_JOINT } this works beautifully and allows easy creation and alignment of nodes (especially nodes that aren’t aligned perfectly on a world axis, where coordinates get a pain to create) and the nodes scale automatically when rescaling the mesh. No more calculating coordinates by hand. For parts that surface-attach (antennas) this might not work, but for those I usually place the node on the origin point of the mesh (or more: place the mesh around the origin so that origin and wanted attachment points are one point in space), eliminating any scaling needs too, as it will always be at 0,0,0. With this method, you will be able to model in a 1:1 space, export to mu and scale the model ingame via just one simple cfg entry in the model-section: MODEL { model = HGA/Proton/parts/stage2 scale = 0.60976,0.60976,0.60976 // 2500mm target size and 4100mm real size }

I can't (or rather: isolate) see the "real" problem, too, as everything COULD be "by design". The dark lines could be missing or too little UV edge padding, or z-fighting if the deck consists of clipped parts or the effect i noticed here: in my thread "Quick Tip: Strange visible mesh edges (no UV Problem) on meshes with modelled interior."

Thanks. I keep investigating and trying to reproduce (which atm I cant, they seem to work ok). But i keep looking!

Did you stage the fairing or used right-click menu (or action groups)?

Do you still have the craft file or know which fairing base you used? (And if the briz upper stage was incorporated in that launch?).

I look into the fairings. Normally, you need no extra separation motors, as the fairings have invisible ones already built in (invisible thrusters, invisible flame, no damage fx) to give the fairings a torgue while the decoupler force pushes them off. The real ones do this by spring loaded pushers, therefore i have these little helper engiens hidden. EDIT: they don't miss a thing and decouple good on the ground. It might be that the fairing sep occurs too early in flight, when air density is still high enough to let the lift of the fairing overcome the separation force. Tried decoupling the fairing around 70000m after stage 3 is lit? Real world fairing sep occurs 16 seconds after vernier ignition, 13 seconds after stage2 separation in a height of around 123km.

Maybe the gimbals are locked? Try right-clicking on the engines and have a look.Usually, you can turn her quite nice. Ever tried flying her manually?

Yeah she packs quite a punch. Problem is though: if you build a stack the size of the proton from 2.5 and 1.25m stock parts you will get roughtly the same amount of fuel, oxidizer and mass, as the parts use the same rules for density and volume. So far, so good. But then, you need the engines to be as powerfull as they are to lift that thing. Soo.. ISP would be a place to attack the problem and cut her down a bit in terms of op-ness in the stock environment. But then, I am already lower on thrust, isp, burntime and dv than tantaresLV proton. Or arbitrarily increase the mass of the engines, like all stock parts have? Hmmm...^^

I know, my comment was rather a generic advice (to new users reading this here) to not applying modifiers too early, but to keep them as long as possible. A remove doubles can by itself generate problems when you had a split mesh and a edgesplit but now the threshold of the remove doubles is to big and... you know

Just a quick addendum: You don't need to apply the edgesplit modifier, as they will get auto-applied during export to FBX. Makes for a more non-destructive workflow if you keep all the modifiers un-applied as long as they can be. Also, the edgesplit modifier can be used with two modes: auto-splitting based on the angle of adjacent faces of the mesh (30° default when adding a edgesplit modifier to a mesh) which can be toggled by the "edge angle" checkbox and/or manually specifying sharp edges by selecting them and ALT-E->mark sharp when the "sharp edges" checkbox is ticked. That way you can REALLY choose which edge should be smoothed, and which not. Personally, I try to avoid the smoothing based on angles, to not accidently sharpen or smoothen an edge. Of course, this depends on the complexity of the mesh.

I have not thaaaat many parts on orbit, some comm relays and a 4-section, around 50 parts station that I disassembled and resassembled after the physics tweak, but it stayed intact.

Even three 1-kerbal landercans stacked togerther with nothing else can have a huge impact on fps, if they are manned/kerballed. Try it whith Alt-F12 ->Performance Monitor. With the kerbals, while the average fps still remains high(ish), the fps falls back to a very low baseline multiple times a second, giving sluggish feel with yellow physics indicator bursts. You can improve the baseline by editing PHYSICS_FRAME_DT_LIMIT = 0.04 to 0.001 in the settings.cfg. (numbers smaller than .01 will be capped to .01) With this, the low fps baseline will be about 50 instead of 25 or so.

Maybe you can try the advanced fly-by-wire mod for ksp, that greatly improves the input handling of ksp, inlcluding the support of multiple devices at once. Or (and/or) take a look at the Universal Joystick Remapper for Windows, that can map two physical input devices into one logical device. But maybe the Steam Controller is not that suited for this program, as the steam controller is more than just a stick.

Got a dog when I was a child and had several cats. Once as a child when my parent where visiting our neighbor for a birthday they found me inside my dogs hut. Must be the safest place I could imagine when I woke up that evening. Two of the cats died very young, one tomecat was lured away. But the last of them lived for 23 years and was still hunting everyday when she herself become the prey. She even survived beeing trapped under the roof of our neighbors house in the hottest summer. When she was finally found she was reduced to a handful of fur. (Not that she has been fat all her life^^) Slept for days besides my desk in her basked, interrupted by drinking an puking and licking the special food-paste the doc gave us. But she managed to recover and went on for another 5 or 6 year living her life to the fulliest. Best cat I ever had. Best dog I ever had. Sooo.... BOTH

You can assign a custom transform orientation based of any part of a mesh (vertex, edge, face) from the "Transform Orientations" Panel in the "n"-Menu of the 3d window. So you dont have to rotate the mesh to be aligned with the global axis. Just select the bottom of the cone, add (and select) a new transform orientation based on this, and then work with these axis. (You need to press xyz-keys twice each time though.)

Hey Guys, just wanted to say that the mod is alive and kicking. Slowly but steady. Clamps are done researching and modelling, just need to AO bake and texture then and export everything. Don't know if I make one arm without fuel line, which is used on the side of the launch table where the rocket is loaded. Probably will do. With the clamps will come the update for the Rocket itself, like see-through fairings in VAB, smaller tweaks, like said before. Also, TKS/VA is coming along nicely. (fast preview render of clamps WIP with the most basic materials)

Afair it's a driver thing on the newer AMD drivers that throttle the card back way faster and sooner now, if there is not much GPU load. It was reported in other games with high CPU load and low GPU utilization, too. You have to disable this feature for KSP. Don't ask me how, I stopped using AMD years before, but must something like energy adaptive vs non-adaptive. On some german forums where some reports of similar problems when running MSI Afterburner along with a 390 with newer drivers.

PBR is not a synonym for photorealism. Its just a technique that can be used, like a pencil can be used to draw ultra-realistic images or for ultra-simle outlines. I'm quite exited of it.^^

Nice, but I still prefer Notepad++ (with or without SnippetsPlus Plugin, which does the same).

Thanks, but unfortunately, I already rotated it by rotating it in blender and re-exporting everything. Nevertheless, now I know that I could have just used the rotation-entry in the .cfg instead

Hi All! Does anybody know if there is a way to set the alignment of the stock procedural fairings? In the way on which axis the "split" of the two fairing halves occur? (Meaning that the fairing is set to to halves only by it's cfg) Normally, they do split on the left-right axis in regard to the parent object's alignment (on part would fall in direction of the VAB door, one 180 dregrees from it in the VAB @ default orientation of the parent part.) I would need a 90° rotated split, one that would result into a bottom/top fairing part split. Currently, i have the parent part 90° offset to its intended orientation to do so. IE when you grab it in the VAB, you have to rotate it first, before attaching. But that is not THAT great of a "solution".

I have some strange FPS-Isses recently, that i dont have really sorted out yet. BUT: the issue is only there when i use an older career that was started in 1.0 or so. The fps fluctuate wildly between like 70 and low twenties whenever i have a kerbal-manned ship focussed. If I have a ship with no kerbals in it, then all is fine. At first I though of a part-count issue (though my ships and stations ran very well until now AND with a newly created savegame they do still run great (>50 min fps) as they are rather small. So i deleted all the flying vessels, put 3 lander cabins stacked together on the pad and the fps fluctuate wildly, even the phycics bar goes yellow from time to time. If I EVA the three Kerbals, FPS shoot up and all is fine. New savegame, same three landercans with kerbals -> no problems. So, maybe try starting a new game first.

Look at this thread, the solution for blender is on page3: [url]http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/136097-Window-Geometry[/url]

Besides the already mentioned "manual" copy and rotation around the 3d cursor, you also have a mirror modifier (that can also be used multiple times, say to model 1/4th of a part, then mirror on x and then mirror everything again on y. For better control, use the array modifier with a empty that is rotated (and/or moved) one step. Say, you want a 6-way symmetric window arrangement? Add a empty, rotate it 360/6=60 degrees, add a array modifier to you model, set to 6x repetition, offset to be based on the emty. Google for "Blender mirror modifier" and "blender array modifier" and/or watch this video (which i learned it from ;) ): [url]http://www.blenderguru.com/tutorials/how-to-make-a-car-wheel/[/url]