heliobyte

I was hoping to get some help with how to make realistic thrust curves. I know to make them, but I find it very hard to make the thrust curves realistic, or apply them to real world solid rocket motors. My current process is to add a bunch of lines with random numbers, test in-game, change the numbers, restart KSP, change the numbers, repeat. Surely there is a much better and time-saving way of doing this? The Realism Overhaul guys seems to have this down to a science, seeing as their thrustcurve numbers are scary specific. Is there a tool that can emulate and generate exact numbers? I am trying to make this curve into a realistic thrustcurve in the game. If there is a way to somehow copy this curve with these values and have them generated into numbers that can be copy/pasted into a MM file, I would love to know how.

Care to explain THIS? Didn't you retire from modding? This does NOT look like a retired modder to me! Lol jk Those renders looks beyond amazing, please come back!

"Simplified Sea Level Raptor"? Nothing @Kartoffelkuchen makes for KSP in anywhere near "simplified". That engine is probably one of the most detailed models you'll ever see in KSP.

You liar! You've damn near finished the entire modeling part of the development phase in less than a week, you've already got parts in the game and the texturing is technically 50% done as most of the thing is just plain white. The progress thus far looks amazing man! Keep it up! Also have fun adding 42 "node_stack_bottom =" in the cfg file

Wait, this has not been fixed yet? I prefer being able to play the games I pay for. Being forced to play the game on the wrong monitor in only 1024x768 or lower without the ability to increase the resolution is not what I signed up for. Clearly this is an issue with KSP 1.2 pre-release. Eveyone who has reported on this issue has done the same thing. They had 1.1.3 installed, they opted in for the pre-release, played the pre-release, went back to the current official released version, i.e 1.1.3 and now they can't play the game on their preferred monitor and on a resolution that belongs in the 1990s. Assuming no one has already made a bug report on this, will this issue be taken more seriously if we do make a bug report?

Yea I am having the same exact issue. I've tried everything I can think of and 1.1.3 still refuses to open in fullscreen on the primary monitor. It also refuses to let me apply any changes to the resolution. The resolution always reverts back to 1260x720 regardless of how many times I aggressively press the "Apply" button. This didn't happen last time I opted in for pre-release, and I've always had multiple versions of KSP (I save older versions). EDIT: I don't launch the game from Steam, I launch it from the "Kerbal Space Program" directory.

Right, thanks! That worked like a charm. All the animations imported as one single take instead of 95+ different ones. EDIT: I would give you rep points, but that doesn't seem to work...

Can anyone explain to me how animating multi-mesh parts in Unity works? The animation does not show up in-game and I get errors in Unity telling me to set the animation to Legacy. I don't know how to set animations created in Unity to Legacy. I always do it for simple animations done in Blender, and it works just fine. The main issue I am having is that I am trying to animate a solar array. It consists of a base, an arm and 5 panels. All these meshes needs to move, and the animation plays without issue in Blender. But for some reason when I export the model and drop it into Unity, the animation is all out of whack and I get like 95 different animation clips. So I decided to try animating in Unity instead of Blender. This is really frustrating because I have animated multi-mesh parts in Blender and ran them through Unity in the past without this issue. Hopefully someone can help me out, because out of ideas. Thanks

Hey @liquidhype I had an absolute blast running the Vulcan pack through it's testing phase. I'll PM you a couple of minor things I've found and then I'll move on to Titan IV, and Ariane 5 and 6. I'll leave you and the peeps with some nice screenshots I took during a Vulcan 441 max payload test run.

How do I go about setting up engines, fuel tanks and solid motors for real fuels without having to deal with RO? Is there a tutorial on how to do this somewhere? If not, I would love it if anyone would be so kind as to show me what a config file for an engine, a tank and a solid motor would look like. Thanks a bunch

34.9 thousand faces, wow. Easy on those bezier curves there mister They don't need to be that intense. An engine model that simplistic does not need to exceed even 3k faces.

It is always nice to see someone relatively new to 3D modeling starting to get the hang of it. However, from an engineering standpoint, the engine does not make all that much sense. You have two of what looks to be feedlines going into the turbopump exhaust manifold. That would never happen in real life. Engines that filter the fuel around the engine nozzle to keep the nozzle temperature down only uses one feedline. Also those spheres you've got there, I can only assume those are some old-school start cartridges of some sort. Firstly, they would never be mounted on the exhaust manifold, secondly they would either be mounted somewhere on the upper engine structure or on the aft bulkhead on the fuel tank the engine is attached to. I don't mean to be too harsh here, but seeing as your engine is meant for Realism Overhaul, it should follow a realistic engine design, right? I recommend you take a look at how other KSP modders who have made realistic engine made them and draw some inspiration from those for your engine(s). Here is a Sketchfab model of Blue Origins BE-4 engine by @liquidhype And here is a Sketchfab model of SpaceX's Merlin 1C engine by @Kartoffelkuchen

Another nice review. I found it hilarious that you did not figure out how to attach the BE-3 shroud xD You attached it upside down.

@MeCripp I'll just tag you instead of re-quoting the entire thing. What I did was, I downloaded the .obj file that someone linked on the thread here, and imported it into Blender. I removed any materials from the meshes (because the UVs tends to get messed up when splitting an already UV-ed mesh). Then I went into "Edit Mode", selected the faces of the mesh that I wanted to separate out and hit "P" and chose "Selection" from the popup menu. Once the meshes were separated from the main mesh, I had to fill a couple of holes that were left over from the separation and re-UV those. Then I gave the meshes new materials and applied the textures to the materials and voilà. The rest of the process is the same as with any part for KSP. Make colliders for the models, export as .fbx or whatever format you prefer (or drag and drop the .blend file into Unity), and export from Unity.

@Virtualgenius Sure can. I just had to create a couple of new UV islands and move them into the appropriate places on the texture map after separating out the meshes. Now I only need to make a few simple colliders, run the models through Unity and thats it. I'm sure you, @Felbourn or whoever wants to use these can configure the parts, set up the connection nodes and give the modules some resources as you see fit. To be honest, I would separate out that cargo module from the rack too. Just for the sake of versitility. It would also make more sence to not launch the cargo module with that ground rack attached to it.

So you are getting into 3D modeling? Welp, RIP any free time you might have between work, family and making YouTube videos Once you get the hang of modeling, UV-mapping, texturing and all that, it quickly becomes an obsession. It is such a great feeling being able to make any part you can dream up and whack it into the game in no time. At this point I've probably made every major launch vehicle in the world for KSP. Best of luck with your new modding career

Right, that is what I feared. I don't understand the whole RGB alpha channel mumbo jumbo Where do I find these values, how do I adjust them and how do I combine my specular map with my diffuse map? I was so happy when I finally figured out how to make all these fancy maps, and now I can't use them. Guess I'm back to square one Thanks for taking the time to answer though!

So I finally mastered (somewhat) the art of creating specular maps, AO maps, height maps and all that. Now my question is, how do I use for example a specular map in Unity? (Yeah yeah I know I probably should have figured that part out first ). When I set the shader to "Specular" or "Bumped specular" in Unity I only get 2 texture slots. Logic would dictate that one slot is for the diffure texture and the other for the normal map. Where to I put the specular map? I have read something about alpha channels and RGB and so on, but that makes absolutely no sence to me. I was hoping it was as easy as simply dropping a specular map into a texture slot and that was it, but I guess not. Are there any KSP specific tutorials on how to do what I am failing to do? I want some of my fuel tanks to look more shiny and reflective, but not to the degree that the reflective module from Texture Replacer makes them. Simply setting the shader to specular and using the diffuse map makes the parts look like plastic rather than metallic. Thanks!

I always make it my mission to never have meshes parented under the main mesh. I see some people who parent all their details such as bolts, cables, fuel lines, etc to the main mesh, instead of simply joining them together. The only time I ever parent one mesh to another is for engines (nozzle, acutators, pistons). With the amount of logos I want on my fairings, fuel tanks and interstages, I don't really want to have separate quad meshes for the logos parented under the main models. I'd much rather use a larger texture map to fit the main model and details, and still have everything looking really sharp. So if using 2k and 4k texture maps has no significant impact on performance, i.e when launching the rocket, then I'll go for those texture sizes.

I was just curious, does having parts with big textures (2048x or 4096x) have any significant impact on game performance? I.e does it cause lag or slow down the game in any way? I am by no mean a computer wizz, but as far as I understand it, having parts with big textures would mostly affect RAM. The reason why I ask is that I am modeling a few different real rockets, and I want decals and logos on the tanks and fairings to come out crisp and high resolution. A 1024x texture map does a nice job at it, but I'd much rather have 2048x or even 4096x texture maps to really get the logos looking sharp. As an example, let's say I used 4096x texture maps for 2 fairings, 1 interstage and 1 fuel tank, would that be an issue, other than just increasing RAM usage? Thanks

So I've been busy modeling quite a few engines lately, some fictional and some real-world. I made sure to model them as close to 100% identical as possible, but this presented me with a problem I had not given any thought prior to modeling. All these engines, especially the real-world ones have acutators which are used for engine gimbal. The acutators usually consists of 6-7 components making up the different anchor points, pistons, pivots and so on. How do I go about setting up the acutators to work in the game? I know there are a few people in the community who have engines that are set up like this, and I believe they use some kind of look constraint. However, I have no idea how the hierarchy is supposed to be set up. Which parts needs to be parented to which, and which ones needs to look at each other. All of this really confuses me, and I would greatly appreciate any help and/or tutorial on how to do this. I think having a good tutorial on how to set up acutators would encourage a lot more people to make more realistic engines, which in turn benefits us all. Thank you in advance to anyone willing to help out!

Interstellar Quest definitely gets my vote. I like the other series as well, but his "serious business" series doesn't really do it for me. I'm all about realism in KSP and I play with all the RO recommended mods, but Scott's rockets in that series makes no sence and looks like 12 clowns threw up on them I mean come on, green, blue and orange tanks with engines from every country in the world on the same rocket with solid motors attached underneath the liquid engines. Would be a lot cooler if he either built replicas of real rockets or used actual replicas from Kartoffelkuchen, NecroBones or Shadowmage.

Yea I figured that was how I was supposed to do it, but for some reason the game doesn't even want to start when I do that. All I get is a black screen and KSP saying "Not responding". I'll give it another shot.

I followed these steps, and yet I have no clouds. Not really sure where I went wrong. I installed the latest versions of Scatterer and EVE first, then I dropped the Scatterer folder from RVE into GameData, and then I dropped the RVE and EVE folders from RVE into GameData. Did I miss something? The Scatterer folder from RVE was from the Linux branch, the rest (RVE and EVE folders) from the windows branch. The game did not even want to start loading if I used anything other than the Scatterer folder from the Linux branch. If only this process was easier (or I was smarter)

How do I go about using this with RSS, and how do I bring up the ingame GUI? In stock KSP the clouds are a bit too thick for my liking, so it would be nice to play around with the settings and change the density (if possible). I'd like to have a nice balance between Ci, Cc and Cs clouds instead of almost exclusively Cu/Sc clouds.