HarvesteR

This was brilliant! is very much the definition of epic.Cheers

Hi, I’m happy to announce that the 0.12 Update of KSP is now officially released! This update marks a big milestone on KSP development. It reaches the goal we set upon ourselves several months ago, to give the Kerbal planet a moon, and to make it possible to land on it. This update features: * A Moon (Mun) around Kerbin. * Planets and Moons rotate, and Kerbin now has a night/day cycle. * Planets and Moons are now in orbit. * It’s possible to send a spacecraft into an orbit around the Sun. * Thrust Vectoring Liquid Engines. * And some other stuff. The full changelog can be seen here. Cheers!

Pre-Order/Donations means it\'s one system that allows for both. Basically every payment can be a donation. You can donate as much as you want, and if your accummulated donations reach or exceed the preorder price, you automatically bought the game. But, the purchase system we had up until now was merely a placeholder, because we needed to have the purchases open fast. It was never meant to be used for as long as it was though. The new store system took much longer to make ready than we could ever have imagined. Now it seems the store is almost complete, so we closed down the old system so we could port the existing full-version player database over to the new store engine. Again, this is also taking much longer than originally intended, but I guess if there is one system where we can\'t rush the job, it\'s this one. The new store should hopefully be up and running sometime during the next week. It can\'t be long now Cheers

For now those are all we have, as far as ship effects go. They are mostly placeholders at this point though, and a big overhaul to the effects is planned for the future. That would include more, faster and better-looking particle effects. Cheers

Quite right. The parts have a collision-tunnelling protection system that checks their traveled path on each frame to make sure they didn\'t go through the terrain. That works by casting a line from the part\'s previous position to it\'s current one, and unsurprisingly, that line is cast from the origin point of the model (scene 0,0,0). So if the scene origin is outside of the collision mesh, it can happen that this linecast will touch the ground before the actual collision mesh, and cause it to explode, even at low velocities. I guess this might be considered a bug. Cheers

Hmm, I\'d first check the collision mesh pivot point in the 3D scene. It doesn\'t NEED to be, but it wouldn\'t hurt to place it at the scene origin (XYZ = 0,0,0). Also, make sure you haven\'t linked the collision mesh to another object in your model. The part loader will find the collision mesh and move it to a different place in the hierarchy, so if it is parented to another object, it\'s possible it could be getting shifted at load time. These are just some ideas off the top of my head. I hope they help. Cheers

Quite likely. You can\'t be too careful with your IP rights these days. Who do we sue for that blatant plagiarism? Cheers

I\'m a big fan of Orbiter here. In fact, I have a Delta Glider paper model sitting on top of my computer Also, the OrbiterForum community was extremely helpful on the early stages of KSP development. And they were the first to see the first public release. I thought everyone would have figured that out by the hail probe smileys. :hailprobe: But I\'m happy to see everyone understands that KSP was never supposed to compete with Orbiter. KSP is supposed to be a spoofy take on space programs, with a strong cartoonish feel to it. Orbiter is completely focused on realism. It\'s true Orbiter is very much more advanced as a simulator. It does have 12 years of development behind it. But I never wanted KSP to be as advanced as Orbiter in that respect. KSP is about freedom to build things that may not work, and having fun exploding really expensive spacecraft, while based on an above-average-realism physics simulation Cheers

Being a Memebase fan myself, I think this is really awesome! :thumbup: Cheers

I\'m very happy to announce that today, the KSP forum has reached the 10,000 members mark. :thumbup: Since we stopped counting downloads, keeping track of the game\'s outreach has become a much more complicated matter. One particular stat I\'ve kept my eye on was the member count on the forums here, so I\'m very happy to see our community reach this milestone. Once more, many thanks to everyone who downloaded the game, and a special thanks to those who have been here with us from the start and are actively helping us continually improve KSP. Happy Launchings!! Cheers :cheers:

Provided this thing does work as advertised, I think you\'d spend more energy in countering the torque from the spinning counterweights than you\'d get back from the generator... I\'m assuming, of course, that the counterweights are attached somehow to the central hub... Be it a very very efficient ball bearing or even a magnetic floater bearing, there will be a torque applied to the thing, and you\'ll have to compensate by spinning something in the opposite direction. I doubt this system would provide enough energy to even keep the central hub from joining in the rotation... much less to spare. Cheers

Hi, So, as luck would have it, a small bug went by unnoticed in the 0.11 update. It would prevent time from resuming after unpausing the game, unless you cycled the time warp rates to get it moving again. To fix that, there is a 0.11.1 hotfix update, which is now available for download. Cheers

Hi, The 0.11 Update is now available for download! The full changelog can be seen here. Cheers

Yep. I\'ve always known Paypal was a problem waiting to happen... Unfortunately, we\'re very limited in choice of payment engine, since most (good) services don\'t cover Mexico. Paypal is the only one that does that, and still allows for a donation system. What we are doing though, is rigging up a direct payment system with a local bank account. That means we\'ll soon have an alternative to Paypal. Cheers

Ahh, I made some tweaks to the control surfaces now, they\'re much more effective (they don\'t stall as easily as the static winglets do). I\'ve spent the better part of the evening tweaking this plane here, to get a feel for a longer playing experience. The flight model feels quite good now I think. Cheers

Just wanted to share with you guys this spaceplane I constructed here. It flies really well, and can make orbit relatively easily, deorbit and land. It also has RCS, so it can maneuver in orbit. Also, if you find yourself in a very weird emergency, it can also jettison it\'s wings off Parts are mainly C7\'s pack, with one or two from Sunday Punch\'s and Silisko\'s packs. (and stock RCS blocks and tank) Here are screenshots: Note: You will need KSP 0.11 x4 and the latest SIDR, C7 and Sunday Punch packs. Cheers

I\'ve been coding for about 5 years now (I think). Started off in college with Flash and ActionScript 2 -- I know, don\'t mock me--, then moved on to JS and AS3.0... Never coded seriously in C# until KSP got started (I must say, it\'s an awesome language). Other languages I\'ve used in the past are C, Java, C++ and Python. (I hate Python now) Before coding, I worked a lot with 3D modelling in 3Ds Max. Cheers

Hi, Just wanted to let everyone know about an important change done on the 0.11 version. As of version 0.11, all part textures are compressed to DXT format on load, to enable mip-maps and improve performance. However, one issue has been spotted with 3rd party parts. On a few textures, the loaded map will appear to be tinged red. That is most probably due to byte-order encoding and alpha channels, so it\'s strongly recommended that all mod-makers check their texture maps, since it\'s very likely that this issue will appear. We don\'t want to create an alternate way to load textures this time, since this is very important for improving performance. We apologize for the inconvenience. Cheers

Well, this is kinda hard without knowing the sizes of the gears in relation to one another... If I recall correctly, the big gear (about 1 inch in diameter) had a ratio of about 3:1 to the small gear (the ~1cm diameter one)... but I can\'t say that\'s accurate... I would suggest you take a marker, and put a small dot on two gears of different sizes. Place them against each other so that both dots are aligned, and turn one of them fully around the other, counting how many times the dot on the gear that\'s going around passes nearest the other gear. When you return to where you started (the dot on the other gear), you\'ll know more or less the ratio of their circumferences. Or, if you can measure the gears accurately enough, circumference = 2 * PI * radius. Another idea would be to count the number of teeth in the gears... assuming they\'re equally spaced so they mesh, you could get a rough estimate from the ratio of teeth between 2 gears. From there you\'ll have to do some math and/or trials... If the ratio of a big gear to a small one is, say, 3:1, you can connect a third, small gear to the same axle as the large gear, and mesh that with a big gear on yet another axle. That already puts you at 9:1... to get to 13:1 you\'ll probably need a large-ish combination of upshifts and downshifts, but that will depend very much on the ratio of the gears themselves, so I don\'t think I can be any more specific. best of luck with your project! (I really miss having my LEGOs around) Cheers

Actually, according to NASA's risk assessment, it's a 1 in 3200 chance of causing damage on the ground. More interestingly, groundtrack shows that on the predicted reentry window, the satellite is likely to deorbit over mexico, and according to an image I saw, it should pass very near Mexico City. Should be a very cool fireworks show... Too bad the predicted times are during the day... I'll definitely try to spot it anyways Cheers

Strut Connectors are surface-mounted parts with no attachment points of their own (apart from their own internal joint system). So fuel won't actually flow through them, because as of now part always look to their parent parts for fuel. Later I plan on rewriting the fuel flow system, to add the option for engines to use fuel from child tanks, which means struts could then be coded to actually look for fuel on the other connected part. (On second thought, a fuel-line strut part would be more interesting I think) Cheers

I'm going on a hunch here, maybe I'm on the right track: Are you modding a copied part folder from the original liquid engine? If so, did you change the new engine's name parameter on the cfg? not changing the name is very likely to cause such weird issues. Cheers

In THEORY it should be clamped to 0-1, but I haven't added any limits to it. I thought it could be useful as a 'cheat' parameter. Mind that this doesn't actually affect the actual wing area. It effectively multiplies the pivoting range, so going too far with this may cause the wing to actually flip over, even though it won't show visually. I would suggest sticking with the safe 0-1 range if unsure. Deprecating means that a piece of code is considered obsolete, but it isn't removed from the project yet. This prevents projects that depend on the deprecated feature from breaking with the new update, and gives developers some time to update them. Relying on deprecated features is strongly discouraged, since any such feature may be removed on a future update. Cheers

Hi, Just wanted to officially announce the release of the 0.10.1 revision update. It fixes a few long-standing issues with the atmospheric model, and changes the folder structure for the Mac version, so that now a Mac version of PartLab is possible and mod install procedures are the same regardless of platform. The full changelog can be found here. Cheers

Hi, Just wanted to let all mod-makers know, I've deprecated the Stabilizer class added in 0.10.0 As of 0.10.1, we now have a new ControlSurface module that works the same, but has none of the physics and collision problems seen with the Stablizers. Instead of simply adding the changes to the Stabilizers, I decided to deprecate it, to give mod-makers time to change their Stabilizer module parts to the new ControlSurface module. The main difference is that the ControlSurface module requires a mesh object called obj_ctrlSrf to work. Without it, it becomes static as a normal winglet. Also, the new module now has a CtrlSurfaceArea parameter that allows you to specify the area of the moving piece in relation to the entire winglet area, or simply use it as a non-visual multiplier for control effectiveness. The obj_ctrlSrf object will pivot around it's X axis, as many degrees in each direction as the CtrlSurfaceRange parameter allows. One thing to keep in mind with this new module is that things attached TO ControlSurface parts will not pivot along with the moving part. For that, we have planned to add other types of part specifically geared towards that purpose later. Cheers