hoojiwana

Be careful on making up backstories. It can be cool yes, but roleplay is against the forum rules.

Artyom's dev blog on the new KSC has been utterly invaluable. This tiled concrete is the same in-game size as the KSC ones, and covers this huge wall with only 512x512 texture! Need to do the building details and windows tomorrow and the first part of my block is done.

What texture resolution are we looking at using? 1024x1024 really doesn't work very well for a huge object like these plots.

I'll take D3. Absolutely no idea what I'm going to fill all that space with, but I'll give it a go!

My record for LKO is at 487 Mg, with the launcher being just over 3,000 Mg. That's ~200 more than Saturn V! Build your lift system around the payload. I've found 2 orange tanks + a Mainsail (with a pancake tank to stop overheating) makes an excellent booster for huge payload masses. Just build those boosters around the payload in an asparagus'd spiral and you can get all sorts up into LKO.

Thanks for that link, I didn't know that was an engine type! Certainly about the right stuff for a probe-scale LV-N, we shall see! There will probably be a large linear RCS port based on the probe sized MP engine, whether or not those get made into really big 4-way blocks I don't know. Oh, and here's what I've been working on rather than any of the things I've listed: The Rockomax "Cutter" Linear Aerospike with higher thrust but lower ISP than the stock toroidal one.

It would be far easier to go into the persistance file and remove anything that isn't the two stations.

If you have any simple requests for parts for Stockalike 0.6, now is the time to make them! Here's a little list of what I'm aiming to include: 1.25m Monopropellent engine 0.625m Monopropellent engine Small Radial Monopropellent engine Remodelled radial stack extenders 0.625m LFO tanks, since I've been making lots of rockets in that scale and stacking Oscar B's is getting pretty dull! And here are some potential things, though I might push these back to the next update since there's not much point having the above unreleased for too long. Linear RCS version of the 0.625m MP engine, for all your gigantic craft maneuvering Radial reaction wheels 0.625m LFO engine that's between the LV-1 and the 48-7S 0.625m nuclear engine What exactly do you mean having trouble getting it to load? Does the game get stuck on the first loading screen before the menu? Or is it an issue in the VAB/flight scene? Check that you've installed it correctly in the GameData folder.

As long as the only things in the save when you're done are fully stock then you'll be fine.

As far as I'm aware they should all work just fine with the exception of the Inline Avionics in Stockalike.. Nothing really changed as far as I'm aware going from 0.20 to 0.21+, with the exception of the new SAS, so I didn't see a need to change them to show [0.21] on their Spaceport pages. EDIT: Oh look, something new!

Now you see why the IYMSS lasted across multiple updates. My tankers are still ready and waiting for the propellent depot though!

Even if your part is going to be one block of colour, you still need to provide a UV map so the model knows where to apply the texture. Otherwise you get the blank grey/white that you're experiencing. The UV map doesn't need to be anything in particular for just a block of colour, just use any old projection method and then your texture should work. I do recommend setting out a proper UV map and texture for your part though, it can make a world of difference to how good something looks.

Just because you cannot easily create optimised models with SU does not mean Bac9 cannot. He also describes exactly what he thought the theme of the design should be, and that was probably based on internal discussion with the other developers.

Thanks for posting this here as well TT, added a link to the compilation thread. I know this is asking a lot but could you add some pictures? People can really struggle without seeing exactly what you mean.

It's a simple matter of renaming the images. Imagine it as a cube, Positive-Z is the front, Positive-Y is the top, Positive-X is to the right. That's how it worked in v1 at least, I'm not sure if the rewritten version is the same.

My apologies, I thought a discussion about a mod for a game would've been about the mod or the game. It does not matter in the slightest how other people play. It matters how they learn to play, and often with MechJeb they don't learn. Even if people like yourself do learn from using it, they should be able to play the game as they see fit using what the game itself provides for them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with his videos and I never said that there was. I used them as an example because they are one of the most oft-recommended tutorials for the game. My point was that if the game had better tutorials, people wouldn't need to visit external sources or use game modifications to learn how to play it.

There are many people who don't go that extra step and look outside of the game for why things work the way they do, or why MechJeb burns a certain way to achieve a certain task. MechJeb by itself just does things, and it is still entirely up to the player to figure out why its doing that. That's barely better than having no idea of what to do at all, as seeing MechJeb do something counter intuitive might just confuse some. If the game had improved tutorials, and a lower learning curve (or cliff in some cases) then people wouldn't need to go watch Scott Manley tutorials, or to download MechJeb to see how it does things. You seem very content to discuss this if you don't think it matters.

Kerbal Engineer is one mod, and there is never any reason to get absolutely perfect maneuver nodes seeing as you require an instantaneous burn to complete them, and when you do floating point errors will always throw your trajectory off anyway.

The assumption that people are using a mod advertised as an autopilot, that consists primarily of autopilot modules, as an autopilot is pretty logical. If you want to have extra information, you could use Kerbal Engineer or VOID. If you want the aerobraking calculator, you can use an external tool to do so. Or you can play the game and get a feel for what sort of builds will go how far, or what altitudes are good for aerobraking. It is a game afterall, and has quicksave and quickload at your disposal.

Indeed, MechJeb doesn't tell you why it does what it does, that's left entirely up to the player to infer themselves. Hopefully the game will feature better tutorials to ease players into the game so less people go looking to plugins like MechJeb when they hit a brickwall of frustration trying to do something new to them. With the new developer focus on career, those tutorials and lower learning curve will likely come as a part of that.

A persons enjoyment of the game is indeed solely defined by that persons experience, you are quite right there. However, a person can have a diminished sense of enjoyment, a diminished sense of accomplishment from using MechJeb. They certainly can still be enjoying themselves, no one is saying they cannot. But considering a popular reason for starting to use the plugin is to get out of a frustrating rut of being unable to complete some self-set goal, but yet the player themselves hasn't done much to get over that hump in difficulty, the sense of accomplishment can be eroded, leaving a player wondering why the game might feel different. I say all that speaking from experience since MechJeb did my first manned Munar landings as I was unable to figure out how to cancel horizontal velocity, meaning everything just crashed and burned. After having MechJeb do that for me a few times, the game just wasn't fun for me. I wasn't playing it, I was watching MechJeb fly everything for me. I had cheated myself out of the huge feeling of pulling off a proper landing on another celestial body, and I can never experience it.

The same attitude is present on both sides of the MechJeb "argument".

You should go look up Mercury-Atlas 9, also known as Faith 7. Gordon Cooper changed the way NASA thought about design philosophy based upon how he saved the mission, and his own life. Here's a great quote from him about what he did:

Hey guys, sorry about the lack of updates, didn't want to really post if it was just a single thing. That and I've been enjoying summer and doing other stuff that's not KSP related so I've not had much to update with anyway! Thanks for checking up on this thread and posting your questions, I'll go through them now. Stockalike 0.6 is in the works, with a remodel of the stack extenders to look more like the other stock structural elements, particularly the stack bi/tri/quadcouplers and adapters. This will almost certainly break any existing craft that use the current stack extenders unfortunately, so keep that in mind when it eventually comes out. 0.625m stack extenders will also be added, and I'm umming and ahhing over doing 2.5m ones. A VASIMR would require a plugin to work, and I absolutely cannot code for the life of me, so it's going to have to wait. With the exception of the Inline Avionics the existing version should work just fine. Next update the Inline Avionics will be discontinued since it now serves no purpose, feel free to delete that part. EDIT: Oh and Bac9 gave me some tips to improve the look of my parts and this is me giving them a go with my new tablet. UV mapping needs to be completely redone, and I need to figure out how to do the AO better.

The KSP Part Tools are a Unity plugin written by Mu (one of the KSP devs) that allows the creation of the .mu filetype for use in KSP. You can download them from the first link in this post. Assets is a folder created by Unity upon install (or first load) that contains all the various materials, models etc. that you use when making something. Tools menu is available on the top of the Unity window along with File, Edit, Assets etc. I can't remember for certain, but I suspect that it doesn't show up until after you have installed the Part Tools.