feanor

It took me some time, but the next collection of parts is released - see the original post. This 0.5 shrink in all dimensions was a request some months ago, and I finally got around to finishing and uploading it. I\'ll continue work on the droptanks and upper stages now, and i\'ll add a few new stock parts to the 0.5 stock part aswell - I don\'t think i\'ll do the spaceplane/airplane parts, but for example the aerospike might be fun to do. The parts are quite usefull for lander parts or finetuning upper stages, or just providing that slight liftoff help. Overall I\'m pleased, but I havent incorporated the new 0.15 lightning/temperature changes yet. My own fault for being slow, terribly slow I guess.. Please leave a comment if you have a question, improvement or critique of these packs - also for the ICBM pack. don\'t just say 'i won\'t download, it sucks' - please say why, so I can improve it! now, quick to bed to get up in time for the falcon 9 attempt tomorrow morning....

Well, I start KSP and it\'s an update. Guess I need to land, with my trusty moon lander - on first try. Took less fuel then going to kerbin! Beautifull sunrise from one of the ice-lakes. and the view from the capsule. almost straight up - Kerbin and the Mun very close to each other. Awesome view!

Just wanted to drop a small post saying yes, I am still alive- thanks for the messages! - i\'ll get a bit of work done in the coming days, and then finally release and update some new stuff.

My uni workload picked up a bit - i\'ll make an update post within the next few days, ideally tomorrow or sunday. Thanks for the interest - i\'ll get going again!

They fit just fine. Also, I made a lower profile version - also seamless, also stackable. This should provide for a lot of flexibility. Again, dont mind the textures yet - they\'ll be made fitting with all the other parts in the upper stages pack. View from above - both standard RCS thrusters and the one from KW challenger. View from the same flight, to to the side. Both sets of thrusters completely hidden but totally functional.

an open-air module with a huge antenna, some deployed solar panels, a drill head, possibly a RTG? Basically a jack off all trades science / utility platform. Or... Perhaps some sort of rover deployment platform?

Claimed evidence is not evidence untill it is admitted and contested as such. I don\'t believe they would fabricate evidence either; misrepresenting it is a somewhat diffirent matter, though. Or getting acces to it without going through the proper channels, taking into care privacy, etc etc. It provides an argument against taking down providers of a capability - however that capability is used. Because of the actions of others ( presumably uploading material and then giving the links to others ) this legitimate user no longer has access to his files. How is that fair?

A grain of salt does not mean that everything they say is incorrect. Your argument is a logical fallacy. Reversed, it looks like this: Original statement: I trust the government. Conclusion: -The government speaks the truth and only the truth. Guantanomo Bay is a legal operation. Entrapment as used by the government is a valid and moral tactic. The 500 million dollars of damage mentioned are a correct number of real-world losses. The pirate bay, by this calculation, has cost the US a few years of total economic troughput. For a non-violent crime it is totally correct to pay a few years in jail.

Also, talking about that email evidence presented by the FBI; I wonder how they got access to that? That seems to be private email - I wonder if that might be a breach of privacy. Also, the claimed amount of damage incurred always make me smile; nice calculations they have there.

no, there was more in that - notably that a capability to do something illegal is not illegal, that enabling ( without direct help ) someone to do something illegal is not illegal, that there is due cause, etc etc. So did I. I pushed off the 'piracy is stealing' non-sense pushed by corporate entities that do not care about society, morals or common sense. You never did. You owned the physical entity, not the music on it. You where not free to remix it, change it, publish it, or whatever without consent. This is no diffirent then from the introduction of copyrightable mediums, such as reprinting of music sheet, making mixtapes, or recording video on VHS. Also, these effects are clearly caused by piracy, not by let\'s say the greed / reckless crushing of common sense by certain lobbying groups, right? Or dumb measures that won\'t help anyway, only drive more people to pirate ( because it\'s easier, more efficient and you don\'t get attacked with all sorts of EULA\'s ) Yes. Let\'s not fix the root cause, but instead try to fix the effects with ever-increasing, misguided draconian measures. Their losses do not exist, by the way. A lost sale by pirating is not something that entitles you to money, not even a little amount. A sale entitles you to money. You gain sales by providing good service, a good product, and setting a price point that is reached by competition. They do not. This is a false argument. Because 2 diffirent people upload a zip with the same video in it, and only one is requested per removal, megaupload should actively check all the zip files ( password encrypted or not ) of their CLIENTS - which may include personal photos, homevideos, papers, tax return backups - for illegal content? The privacy issue trumps copyright concerns every single time. And of course, just as strong an argument; its not their position to check what people upload. This is levied onto them by phrases such as 'actively encouraging' which means they didn\'t stop them fast enough to the liking of various corporate entities. They are innocent. They are untill they reach the end of the legal pathway. If you not agree to this, you should review the whole base of the legal system. Agreed! It was a dumb idea, but it\'s even dumber to ask both that AND fight against pirates. Ah, but if you had arguments you could convince me. You haven\'t even started at the root cause of copyright, which is to encourage diversity and the creation of new products. Take that as a goal and try to devise a system of laws to achieve this. Keep in mind the enormous value ( both cultural as well as monetary ) of remixes, parodies and reactions. Add the ever-increasing easyness with which new content of a high quality can be created, and how this should reflect in your system of laws. This is a logical fallacy. Because I do something, someone else reacts in a certain way. That is my fault. By this logic, noone would ever be convicted of anything, because they can claim that their parents\' actions made them what they are. Furthermore, it equates my own personal actions, morals and arguments with that of a wide and varied group of people who have their own actions, morals and arguments. We should change this discussion to my thread, it could use all these nice bumps and responses

Yes. If not, please give me source. Remind yourself that we live in a society where you are _innocent_ untill proven guilty, and that noone has seen the proof the DoJ claims it has, or how they have gotten it. In fact, I\'ve written papers about this. Unless there is written evidence that they supported piracy ( ie internal email - of which law enforcement has gotten legitimate access - where they expressly support piracy and take measures to support it for money ) there is _nothing_ illegal about hosting a file sharing website. I can\'t stress this enough - there is _nothing_ illegal about it. They even support take downs of non-judiary requests from various companies that SAY that they have found something that they would like to take down, without the possibility of the uploader to revert the decision without spending a lot of money. Even the Pirate Bay - which I assume you think actively supports piracy - does _nothing_ illegal. Various media companies and lobbyists would want you to think otherwise, but it\'s just not the case. All they do is provide a platform for users to share 'torrent' files, which are indexes for other files that are created by users. 'supporting' copyright infringement is not a crime. It should not be a crime. Saying it is a crime is stupid. A website / forum / imageboard is _not_ responsible for what it\'s owner\'s do, say or remove. They can remove it, if they are asked or ordered to by a judge, but they should not be held liable if they don\'t remove it without such a discussion. Whether a capability for something is used for legal or illegal means is irrelevant; the capability is not legal or illegal because of this. This is why a capability ('uploading of large parts of data') is not illegal, even if it used as such. And this argument doesn\'t even go against the very core of the issue - whether piracy is good or bad. I personally am convinced it is in fact a good thing, and that copyright as it exists now is stupid, does not do what it should do, and in fact is even immoral. I live in the Netherlands, where downloading is, in fact, legal. Yes, legal. We pay an added tax on hard drives, empty CD\'s and DVD\'s. The government uses this money to support artists. By logic removing the ways to pirating but still paying this tax the government makes people pay double - pretty dumb, right? Alas, I urge you to read up a bit more about internet, copyright law ( what it\'s intention is, and what it currently does )- And look up the song 'happy birthday', that\'s a real succes story copyright-wise. Keep in mind the original intention of copyright, the various positive impacts pirating has on culture, entertainment and the economy, and the overlap between piraters and media consumers. Looking at internal emails, statements from lobbyists and CEO\'s of the various agency\'s involved, the laws they pass and the response from people in the relevant fields, add to that some knowledge about digital security / obscurity and technical details of pirating - well, I for one can\'t draw any other conclusion then that the MPAA / RIAA nickname MAFIAA is quite correct...

Wellll.... After editing only one part ( to open a parachute at 15000m...) These screenshots make me feel like I should be stroking a white cat in my volcano lair...

Did a bit of work on my the drop tanks today - finished the decoupler mesh + cfg, it just needs a texture. I think I might add some more mesh-doodles to the drop tank, but it\'s collider is finished atleast. Perhaps an adapter for a nice gimbal engine on the bottom / some sort of adapter for when you want to stack these ( yes, that\'s possible as well! ) did a quick-n-dirty UV map for a quick peek at how nice it fits: ( textures certainly not final! ) -the line in the middle with the tiny overlap is the border. -not visible at all ingame!

I\'d be interested in peope posting pictures of their KSP builds! And yeah, the air-launched ICBM is always nice. knew about it for quite a while, but never came around to building it - I guess i need to reinstall C7\'s parts.

Allright, its in the works! Currently working on another pack which will be released soon. After that, this pack will get all my attention again. Drop tanks will be thicker for use with the low-profile decoupler. Still screwing around with the ICBM command pod - it\'s SAS is annoying me.

I strongly remember it not being possible -and I\'ve done all my parts in that way. I also have never seen a concave part in any mod pack.

or 'F' - to fill in a surface, or draw a line between points. You need to select the outer lines of the hole you want to fill in or the points you want to connect.

I second this; might rename to include Blender in the title though, because it\'s all about that, and some people use other programs.

Right, I guess I need to update my forumsearch-fu. Thanks for the pointer in the right directions; should have fiddled a bit longer before making a post.

I\'ve walked into a weird problem. When I import the default parachute .DAE into blender, I get the correct base, mesh, etc etc, turned -90 degrees. Since i\'m working on a shrunk version of almost all stock parts, I shrink everything ( by the same factor ), then turn them upright, export. Everything works fine; it looks good, it attaches correctly. However, on deploying... Weird, huh? As you can see it deploys weirdly - semideployed only has one scale factor applied; the other one is the default scale, even though all meshes are changed. After the semideply it correctly deploys at 500 meters, but sideways. Whelp. My first thought was simply not to change the degrees in blender; let it stay there sideways. But when I do this, the part still has the same behavior. Not changing the scale doesn\'t fix this; as soon as I open blender, it just flips it, and after that, I can\'t seem to get it straight. Anybody got any ideas on how this can be fixed?

That\'s possible already You can also stack more of these drop tanks on top of each other, with only the bottom one being connected through a decoupler. No, at the moment they are made for the stock radial decouplers, but the node_collider is sunk into the object. It is possible to make a new decoupler - and for balance reasons i\'d like to do this - but I\'m a bit afraid that it\'ll be just another radial decoupler, and people might not use the correct one from their inventory and then say that the parts don\'t fit. But it would help a lot with making the parts.... Do you want one?

Time to go to bed, but here\'s one last update. I like this size. Tomorrow I\'ll go make a better mesh with some more features, possible extra attachment points for vernier engines, and work on some other projects.

Finally made them fit. The outer diameter is exactly 2 meter. I\'ll make the inner diameter a bit smaller, so that I can add more fuel in the tanks. These ones have a good node_collider as well. I think I\'ll texture them in a colourscheme close to the stock parts.

Small update today - made the 1 meter version. It\'s not perfectly fitting yet, but that\'ll be no problem. That\'s 5 standard tanks fuelwise, but with a much nicer profile. And only one engine! I want to make them so that if you use a standard fuel tank and you stick this on them, you end up with a 2 meter craft. For that, however, I kinda need the size of the standard radial decouplers. Anyone knows that? ( The same for having a 2 meter core and then adding a set of droptanks - it should be 3 meter diameter ) The other solution -but I don\'t quite like that- is to make my own radial decoupler, but we\'ve got so many decouplers floating around already... I can always just adjust scale, test, adjust scale, repeat.

Here, early prototype of drop tanks. 4 of them, got symmetry working pretty good so far - and they handle nicely! This is the 2 meter core version; i\'ve got another 1 meter core version. ( last image is decoupling ) I think I\'ll make them work on the normal decouplers, although those are actually too heavy to make it worth it; a weight of around 0.1 would be way better. Also, 3 posts in a row - is anyone even reading these posts, or has this thread pretty much died after the release of the ICBM pack? Guess I should make a new thread about this upper stage engine pack once it\'s finished...