Absolution

All three of those options appear valid to me for my particular use. I will play around with them to determine the optimal. Thanks! In the end I was only planning on a very basic, single colored, maybe shadowed, type texture due to the inherent issues with unwrapping such a shape. However, I think I can work with the 'flower' to make the texture a little more interesting. I\'m not very artistic but I think I can manage something tolerable.

60 faces for a given cylinder seems quite high based on what I\'ve seen from other works. This makes me concerned for my 18 face cylinder... Can anyone shed some light on this topic, please?

So far so good with this thread so here is another: Any tips for UV Unwrapping a spherical/conical shape (specifically in blender, of course)? When done correctly I am expecting to see a 'C' shaped UV map or maybe a simple full circle with all of the faces visible. I am trying to unwrap a half sphere and the only thing that got me a decent unwrap was a 'projection from view'. The problem with that is the faces on the extreme edges of my half sphere are edge on to the view resulting in a stretched image. I can piecemeal something together by mapping section by section but that\'s more time consuming than I\'d prefer. It\'s not a complex texture and it does not deserve that kind of attention.

First, thanks to the KSP modding community for the tutorials, tips, hints and help. I\'ve just completed my first concept rocket part and initial testing indicates its working correctly with KSP... now I just need to give it a real texture and do all the other finishing touches. Question: Can I map more than one texture file to a given part or am I limited to one texture one part? I\'ve textured much larger 'objects' with texture files no bigger than what KSP tolerates but I\'ve always preferred to have multiple small textures verses one big one. Can it be done? Could someone please point me in the direction of a tutorial how to?

Aha, that appears to have done the trick. Thanks! Consequently you\'ve helped, indirectly, answer a dozen other questions I\'ve had but now that I can see what others have done I can figure them out for myself. Hopefully I\'ll be able to pay it forward and share my work with the community soon.

Thanks for the tip! Here\'s another one. What do I need to import existing DAE files into blender. When I try it gives me an error 'error parsing collada data. see console for details.' I have a few parts I am trying to open and it seems like only one in ten works right.

Here\'s a quick one for you. I am new to Blender 2.63 and somewhat experienced with 2.49. In 2.63 when I create a cylinder the top (and bottom) face is one single face where in the older versions it would be a series of triangles. How do I triangulate the face? Is there a setting where I can force blender to create a cylinder with the older format? I\'d rather avoid having to delete the face, extrude the edges and merge them in the center every time.

How picky is the KSP engine with regards to single parts and the meshes that they are composed of? Am I able to overlap multiple, but independent, meshes under a single part or will that throw an error? I understand that KSP requires that each ship component be 1 'object' but that does not, necessarily, mean that that one object cant be composed of multiple meshes. For example, I\'m modeling a fuel tank and would like to add some detail features. In particular I am aiming to model a small hose that runs down the side of the tank. Can they be individual meshes or must they all meet at common verts at some point?

I apologize for the resurrecting of an oldish thread but it appears to be the most recent concerning the topic I am interested in and starting a new thread seems even less polite. I hear 2000 polygons per part is a good standard based on the two posts in this thread but the statements lack conviction. So I ask you experienced modelers: is 2000 polys a fair number to shoot for? I understand the concepts that make such a number very situation dependent I am just looking for confirmation that this 'warm and fuzzy' number is appropriate.

In my case it is PC. I\'d like to use the triggers for throttle control but I can\'t figure out if there\'s a way to set the right trigger to throttle up and the left one for throttle down.

I had initially set up the controls for a rocket meaning pitch and yaw were on the same stick but after realizing that a space plane control scheme would have pitch and roll on the same stick I settled on the later. It was a compromise that I think will allow me to switch between a space plane and a rocket without swapping controls. It wasn\'t hard getting used to yaw being on the right and in fact it may be easier overall. Now I can input any degree of yaw and pitch simultaneously without risking one input impacting the other. Here\'s what I\'ve settled on so far: LB/RB: Throttle +/- LStick L/R: Roll LStick U/D: Pitch RStick L/R: Yaw RStick U/D: No function Dpad U/D/L/R: Translate U/D/L/R X: SAS Y: Precision control toggle A: Throttle cut-off B: RCS 'Back': stage activation 'Start': Pause I\'ve been considering using the RStick U/D as the forward and back translate but I don\'t want to risk yawing my craft accidentally while translating. For now I just use the up and down arrows for that. Also, my first ride with this scheme was a roller coaster since I forgot to increase the dead zones and decrease the sensitivity. After playing around with them based on the suggestion from Excalibur I got it to a comfortable level... still tweaking but at least my kerbanauts wont lose their lunches anymore.

Thanks for the feedback! I\'ve been thinking along the same lines and it\'s helped to have confirmation as well as alternate ideas.

Short and sweet: I have a fancy joystick and throttle and pedals and a myriad of other control devices but I\'d like to give the old Xbox 360 controller a shot first. Is anyone interested in sharing their control set ups to give me a head start?

Given the size of Kearth I was worried about what a moon would look like. Even if this is just an unofficial concept I am now encouraged by whatever finds its way into the final product. Good job!