OrbitusII

I don't think the people who were on that project originally are filling those positions anymore, Kerbin City has kind of fallen into disrepair since Kerbtown stopped getting updated (although it seems to work in 0.24). I guess if you can show that you have stuff that can be used you can have that position. Well, they are international passenger jets based off of the 747, at least in part.

If we're going with new planes and such for the city, here's my contribution: The Albatross V4 and Albatross V4-E are designed for the sole purpose of being really big passenger jets. Crew capacities are 168 and 189, respectively. They've already made some visits to Kerbin City, too! (this is an earlier model, V3 I think) I'm considering opening an aerospace company here on the forums, if anyone's interested then shoot me a PM.

By reverse-engineer I sort of mean taking the model from the game and using the rig to create a framework for the new model. By doing that we could save a lot of time because we could simply recycle the Animator Controller and animations on the original model. Once the model is made and rigged, the Unity animation system allows for native recycling of animations provided the rigs are set up correctly. I remember that there is some application or something that allows you to pull the mesh data from the game and someone got the kerbal model by doing that. Unfortunately I believe there may be some legal issues with distributing something based off of that directly, so what could be done is a model grab to give you a reference rig to create your own. I can then configure that rig in Unity for use in KSP and make sure it's working right through a little trial-and-error. As for making our own game, I am actually doing that in my spare time! Heck, we may not even need to grab the original kerbal model from the game! If you can make the rig then I can likely get it configured to use the stock Kerbal animations through a little bit of code.

If you (or anyone, for that matter) were to reverse-engineer the kerbal model then I could look into making a plugin to make certain Kerbals use the female model. Just let me know if you ever get to the point where that could be a possibility!

I think that left one looks a lot truer to the original Kerbal and thus looks better as a whole. The big poofy hairstyle just seems overbearing so if you continue working with those you should use the left one.

Went to Low Munar Orbit today on my livestream. We'll be landing tomorrow!

Streaming some Sandbox 0.24 today, we're going to the Mun! As usual check it out at twitch.tv/orbitusii or now here on this thread!

Looks awesome! My one complaint is that the suspension seems to bottom out fairly easily on those tracks you showed off in the videos. If you increased the spring on the wheel colliders (if you're using wheel colliders) that might help with that a little.

Check out this site: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ It's got multiple licenses that anyone can use, so take a look at the different ones and pick what you think would work best for this. Since it's just textures (made by someone else to boot) I would recommend a Noncommercial Sharealike variant. All "Noncommercial Sharealike" means is that people can't profit off of it and they must use the same license as well as attribute you if they redistribute it somewhere else.

What I would recommend is to go ahead and keep them separate while you develop the model, but to condense them into a single item when you're ready to export to a Unity-useable format. That way you can get the benefit of multiple objects while designing and the reduced draw calls of the single item. Granted, it's a little tricky to manage but it really optimizes the performance of your model. I use this trick on the prototype art for my game project and I can keep draw calls pretty low.

That license is great! A bit crude in terms of language, but very amusing! I'll check this out since having the orange suits always crewing things is indeed annoying and I'd like to circulate my crew in career mode, much like you see IRL.

Yeah, runway gives 100% refund. I wouldn't be surprised if the VAB landing pads were the same way.

Kerbpaint, available here.

The only significant difference between the 32- and 64-bit builds of KSP is the number of bits used by the system when executing the application, leading to other resulting differences in the builds (think RAM limits, performance, etc). Therefore mods generally need not be rebuilt to work on 64-bit vs 32-bit KSP. Granted, not every mod will work out-of-box, but for the most part things should be compatible with all versions since they're just expansions on the game itself. TL;DR: Mods should work the same because Unity and KSP are made well and 64-bit is just an operational difference, but not everything will work 100% of the time.

I see your sans-landing-wheels plane and raise you my own: I built this to test the smallest SRB at 17.3km altitude for a contract. Of course, it didn't work initially, it took some redesigning from the original... It takes off with modular girder segments on radial decouplers for skids. They get jettisoned after takeoff but I'm quite proud of how well they work.

Yeah, the Kraken is an innate part of PhysX and how it's used for KSP (that isn't to say it's an intended feature, because it's not). Yes, it's a bug and they've already removed several mutations on the original Kraken, but you can never get 100% of the bugs, sadly.

I'll have to run some tests but I think it should work out-of-box even in 0.24 since there haven't been major changes to the code base. Still, it would be nice to have some new features I suppose... I've been working on my personal Unity project lately but I can look into new stuff, I know I want Firespitter support for my 747 replica...

This is what happens when you build a plane to test the RT-10 SRB without landing wheels: This is what happens when you fix that plane and get it to work right: And all of this to test one silly SRB... Highlight from my stream on twitch.tv yesterday here.

Spootyman showed off this plane I made on The Couch Stream a few weeks ago. I cant find the archive on twitch but he complimented it as one of the better planes he's flown. It's nothing much, just the Arkbird from the Ace Combat series... Flight Ceiling of about 27km, goes up to 1626 m/s from testing on the stream. More info available at the Curse project page.

Ok then, the names in Unity and the config file match exactly? As I'm sure you know, Unity is case sensitive.

I haven't made many models for KSP since programming is my specialty, but a nullreferenceexception arises when a script tries to access a nonexistent component. I'm guessing in this case the FlagTransform needs a mesh filter and mesh renderer (added through Unity's component menu). Try adding those and see what happens. Unfortunately NREs are very generic and there is next to no specification as to what caused them besides a line number in the script that caused the error. Fortunately my experience with Unity and the apparent behavior of the FlagTransforms in game narrow it down to one specific issue: a missing component that the script is still trying to access and change, hence the null reference. You can't change something that isn't there after all.

Let me PM Nothke to put the zip file I compiled in the original post. I compiled it to deal with this but simply reposting the link at every request is bit of a pain KerbinCity_build2.zip (Hosted on Dropbox) Edit: sent a PM to Nothke with the zip file, hopefully he can get it onto the thread soon.

"The staging's perfect this time around!" because it never really is. It always gets messed up somehow!

Got back from two weeks of vacation, moved into the new place, and built some big passenger jets in KSP. Of course, not all went as planned... While testing the 4th prototype, I crashed the plane into one of Kerbin City's buildings under construction. What happened cannot be explained by science. Yes, that is the cockpit, and yes, it is almost centered in that hanging bit. SO! Onto the actual plane: the Marathon International Albatross-P! I am currently on the 4th version of the design, which hasn't changed much from the original. It's just gotten longer, moved engines around, added more engines... The standard version has room for 36 Kerbals (with the standard B9 pods, I'm going to upgrade them to the IVA-equipped, high capacity ones). It's got 12 engines total, because they're so weak... I'll probably modify the configs so I have bigger, more powerful turbofans. The -E ("Expanded") variant features a 747-like hump with room for 6 more Kerbals (though again I will be upgrading that). This variant is harder to fly, so I doubt I'll use it very much. This is also a reason that I won't use it as much, although it might have just been a bad landing on my part... :roll eyes: Edit: Just installed the improved IVAs, the standard version will hold 168 Kerbals and the -E will hold 186!

Yeah, at first I was having issues accessing the wheelcollider because I was doing the wrong thing to change the torque and steering, but at this point it's just because I've been lazy and haven't gotten around to it. Thanks for linking to that thread, it should help in case I have trouble getting the plugin to work.