BigNose

I just had a merge with one of my fighters and was [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQAmvKMGUko]going in for guns[/url], then I noticed the HUD symbology actually interacting with the gunsight and drawing a line from my nose to the sight for better deflection shooting! *.* As a passionate DCS player, I came.

[quote name='Atatra']loving the new cockpits, but is it possible to make a version of the intake type with a more sloped back to the cockpit? right now the very steep, almost swan neck back to it kinda bugs me.[/QUOTE] I actually think it looks awesome that way! These cockpits are top-notch Baha, great work.

[quote name='linuxgurugamer']Does this mean that adding lights won't affect the framerate?[/QUOTE] It means that the lights behave like for example the "cubic octagonal struts" of vanilla KSP; their physics calculations are greatly simplified to be able to fit alot of them on a craft, without the physics engine having to calculate the forces on every joint every frame. They will still affect framerate slightly in very large numbers (as they still need to be rendered), but nowhere near as much as before (as physics calculations every frame are costly).

Very good news, everybody: Why485 made his own version of Nav Lights for KSP, and they are nothing short of amazing: Surface Nav Lights Go check them out!

All I can say is: Wow. I will post this over in my Aviation Lights thread, more people need to know about this! :D EDIT: Made a shoutout to this mod in my thread! ([url=http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/16925-1-0-5-Aviation-Lights-v3-8-%2816NOV15%29?p=2298731&viewfull=1#post2298731]here[/url]) Great work Why485!

V3.8 Released Fixed the missing entry cost for the tech tree. Also, the lights are now skipped by the physics engine for a performance gain when used in large numbers. CHANGELOG Added - Lights now have double their normal prize as entry cost in the tech tree Changed - Lights are now skipped by the physics engine (performance gain when using them in large numbers) DOWNLOAD COMPATIBLE KSP VERSION: 1.0.X Kerbal Stuff Mediafire This update is fully backwards compatible! Existing crafts will be updated automatically without getting deleted. Quick Tip: Sort the Utility section by part size, and they will come out on top!

[quote name='bgeery']However, in career mode there is no entry cost in the tech tree for the lights.[/QUOTE] Hmm, let me take a look. I also have another small improvement for v3.8, a tiny performance gain if you use alot of lights. Going to test it now.

EVE has been updated to 1.0.5!! http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55905-1-05-1-05-1-Nov-10-2015-EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements

The lights are still working as intended in KSP 1.0.5! Happy update day everyone! EDIT: Goddammit, got ninja'd by time, it's no longer update day...

Thanks for the kind words, glad you like it! BTW, that video is... very kerbal.

1) That works, alternatively you can order the partlist by size, then they are all together due to using the same model. 2) The textures are so small, compression to DXT1 doesn't really do much and/or could even make them bigger. Be sure to compare file sizes afterwards. 3) THAT is actually really good. Never knew this tool existed, thanks! Have some Rep!

That's because the Red Beacon is the base part of this pack and every other light gets it's model from it. You can simply alter the Amber Beacon to use a different colour and texture. Example for the blue beacon (using the blue navlight texture): PART { // --- general parameters --- name = lightbeacon_amber module = Part author = RPGprayer, BigNose, Why485, GROOV3ST3R, JDP, Deadweasel, J.Random // --- asset parameters --- MODEL { model = AviationLights/Parts/lights/model texture = model000, AviationLights/Parts/lights/model000nav_blue } scale = 1 rescaleFactor = 1 // --- node definitions --- // definition format is Position X, Position Y, Position Z, Up X, Up Y, Up Z, size node_attach = -0.025, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0 // --- editor parameters --- TechRequired = electrics cost = 100 category = Utility subcategory = 1 title = Blue Beaconlight manufacturer = Kerbus Lighting Department description = Blue warning beacon. Use Action Groups to switch modes. // attachment rules: stack, srfAttach, allowStack, allowSrfAttach, allowCollision attachRules = 0,1,0,1,0 // --- standard part parameters --- mass = 0.001 dragModelType = default minimum_drag = 0 maximum_drag = 0 angularDrag = 0 crashTolerance = 20 maxTemp = 3200 MODULE { //Energy consumption rate EnergyReq = 0.005 // color changes the colour and intensity (0.1-3 recommended) // Intervals can be changed by modifying below name = ModuleNavLight Color = 0.14, 0.28, 1 IntervalFlashMode = 0 //Used only for reference - leave at 0 FlashOn = 0.15 //Used to define the length of time the light is ON during Flash Mode FlashOff = 1.35 //Used to define the length of time the light is OFF during Flash mode Interval = 0.8 //Used by standard Interval mode } } That should be a working config for a blue Beaconlight, which will look exactly like a blue navlight but has double the brightness. I think this is what you're looking for. EDIT: Just copy the code into a newly created "lightstrobe_blue.cfg" and put it in the "AviationLights/Parts/lights" folder. Should work that way.

Can confirm this, easy to replicate.

@Ser: According to the author you should be able to release an unofficial update in this thread without violating the license. As long as you state it's not yours (which you did), it's only used as a mod for KSP and you don't sell it you should be fine. I'm not a moderator though...

This problem only occurs if the mod is not installed correctly. You put it in the Main Folder/Parts I presume? It belongs into the GameData/AviationLights folder.

Very nice, thank you! And I need to say one thing: The idea to name the releases after mathematicians and people who worked in the field of aerodynamics is just great and really classy.

Thanks for the update, I love them!

Dude, you posted this at 16:10, then edited "anyone?" very shortly after and edited it again at 16:35 about how frustrated you are. Man. 25 minutes and you already needed to show how impatient you are twice? Really? Now regarding your problem: I have similar airbrakes on many of my craft, and they all work flawlessly and 100% reliably (well, if they don't rip off over Mach 2, that is). My first thought was that they are somehow shielded by the cargo bay, but they are behind it, so that shouldn't be the problem. I can suspect a problem with the update of the voxel model of your vessel, as if it doesn't get notified about the extension of the airbrakes. Try to download the lastest Dev build on Github (I use it too), ferram4 mentioned he had "removed the very last voxelization artifacts", so maybe that helps: https://github.com/ferram4/Ferram-Aerospace-Research/archive/master.zip

Still under review... I suggest Kerbalstuff as an alternative option, very nice to use.

Confirmed and agreed, wheels in general should throw up dirt/sand/snow/regolith/whatever-in-that-category over a certain velocity, but of course not spark.

You just have to stay above 600 knots, then it performs brilliantly!

Saw some of you trying to get to Mach 2 with a single basic jet engine, thought I would slap one on my F-104G Starfighter replica (Luftwaffe version) and give it a shot. It normaly uses a a BDynamics Vector jet (gimbal off) limited to 78.5% thrust for realistic performance and TWR. The real F-104 was limited to fly Mach 2 not because of it's aerodynamics (in theory it could have flown much faster), but because its engine's compressor wasn't up for it and overheated at around Mach 2.1! So there was a warning in the cockpit which lit up (the word: SLOW) to get the pilot to pull the throttle back, otherwise engine explosion. The basic jet engine is a bit too weak for the task (unrealisticly weak for my starfighter replica), I could barely touch Mach 1.968. NOTE: This F-104 wasn't built for minimal wave drag but to be a good replica. Interestingly enough, with the BDynamics engine it pretty much flys exactly like one (according the the specifications I got from a real manual of a Starfighter).

Opened a new Issue on Github regarding the erratic fluttering of control surfaces set to follow AoA while the craft is standing still; easy fix should be disabling AoA control under a few m/s. https://github.com/ferram4/Ferram-Aerospace-Research/issues/69 EDIT: Ha! It's Issue #69...

Yay! Glad I could help.

Interestingly, just the small and medium version of the gears get the "ghost box" in FAR Voxels, not the large version for some reason. Can anyone confirm this?