SiliconPyro

I've been thinking about how to make a sort of terrain radar that sees the ground in black and white, only showing topographic contour lines, or maybe contour lines over the terrain's mesh. My idea is to use a camera that can only see the light from four directional lights (coming from four directions) with cookies that would only allow light representing the elevation lines to get through. Hhopefully the result would be dark terrain with bright lines cast onto it. I've never done anything more in Unity than some part making, so I'm not even sure this is possible.

I wish I had checked this thread before I got to work, where I can't watch YouTube. I've got some homework to do. Thanks for the suggestions, guys.

I'm still working on sparking their interest. I'm not sure they have the attention span necessary to be successful in KSP yet.

That's a great looking part. I'm just getting started as well and because I'm not great at texturing, I've just been using solid colors, shades of grey, on my models. Once it's working and you see it with other parts in game, maybe you can get an idea of what details to add, rather than looking at it alone.

Honestly, I'd just like first person EVA. Then use some combination of the typical control layout. That would be so cool.

That's where I started, then I watched MechJeb perform a few orbital maneuvers and the lightbulb clicked on. MechJeb was like training wheels for me, a great learning tool.

I was rephrasing for clarity. You are expressing a pretty negative attitude toward people who are honestly trying to help you.

I disagree. A lot of people are playing on mini-game servers now, which could mean steady revenue if Microsoft made their own and charged a premium.

So when you switch to 'Camera: FREE', then rotate the camera so you're looking, say, directly down at the Kerbal from above him, then press 'W', he doesn't reorient himself, he just keeps his relative orientation and moves forward?

I think if anything changed, it might be servers. Making the server software freely available isn't making any more money and Microsoft might lock that down in an attempt to capitalize on running their own servers.

You just have to switch camera modes (I think to "free"), then the Kerbal will change his pitch to match your view.

That photo is just mind bogglingly awesome. It pains me that my buddy and fellow KSP/Space enthusiast is currently deployed and won't see any of this until he gets back.

For me, it's Laythe. I've only visited once and didn't bring a jet, plus there was a catastrophic failure that destroyed my lander while I was several hundred meters away, but I still like it. I'll be back someday, and with my VTOL engine!

Ahhhh! It's been too long since I played with Python. Thank you for your patience, ratchet freak.

No, I didn't and I checked that python was returning -3 for -13/5. And exp(-3) resulted in 0.04978706. So is that correct?

Okay, how do I use that in, say, Python? I tried: 1*math.exp(-13/5) The result was ~ 0.04978706, not ~ 0.07427358. Any idea what I'm doing wrong?

Okay, I think I'm almost there, but what is "exp"?

I'm trying to figure out how to calculate parachute requirements, so I'm working through this equation. I think I get it, mostly, but I'm lost at calculating pressure. Can someone who knows their math explain how to work through that equation, maybe with a few examples?

Now THAT's Kerbal.

Thanks for those resources. Looks like I've got some math to do.

Up until now, I've either spitballed or just kept things as simple as possible, but I got such a feeling of satisfaction at having learned to calculate my rocket's DeltaV that I'd like to do the same for parachutes. I know there is at least one online calculator, but how does the math actually work in KSP?

Plan a KSP mission to a body outside Kerbin's SOI on paper. List every part, calculate your full DeltaV budget and document the full mission parameters including where you intend to land. If you're good, it'll actually work!

I said volume when I meant mass. I feel dumb now.

One option, to remove the duplicate "control from here" options, is to make the controlNode animate when the docking port's cover opened. A player would then just ignore the one "control from here" that is only available after the controlNode is already oriented with the docking port.

The problem is that, by volume, you need a lot more oxidizer to run an engine, so you're barely better off than a closed cycle rocket. As you mentioned, unless there are maybe gas pocket biomes or something, the entire endeavor would be just for the sake of saying you did it. Completely fruitless.