OrbitusII

This. Unless you actually try out the phone it's hard to get a good idea of how it feels to you, which makes the decision harder. As an iOS user, I can't really recommend either, but if given the choice I might actually go for the Windows phone despite Android's larger app base and customizability. I don't need hundreds of apps and crazy customization options, a phone that does what it says on the package is good enough for me. I haven't used either Android or Windows phones for any useful amount of time, mind you, this is just my impression.

I'll probably work on assembling a community thread for all utilities and expansions over the next few days. If you want to submit something for that thread, send me a PM. Link will go up here whenever that thread is completed. If you don't mind, I'll also post those configs you found on the new thread, Freeman. That way we can keep info more up-to-date and feedback should be a little easier to manage.

Sketchup can export a model as a .obj (which Unity can use), making it very similar to a workflow using Blender: model, UV map, texture, export to Unity, export from Unity using the KSP part tools, set up config files, load into KSP.

Exactly! If not for booms, why made of explosives? The issue isn't how weak it is, but how the system handles collisions. Slow impacts, even with really heavy objects, will generally do less damage than fast impacts with light objects. The system right now only cares about how much force the launchpad experiences when it gets hit, location and speed don't matter. It could be done better but for now it's fine, you just can't make things too big or you'll have to turn off destructibility.

Names? Let me come up with something off the top of my head... "Twinmini" could be interesting. An obvious mashup of "twin" and "mini" with a subtle nod to the original capsule's name. Sheesh, I sound like I'm selling a car or a beverage or something...

I couldn't have said it better myself. Designing the parts to work in one configuration is a lot easier than designing fully modular parts that can be used in a lot of unique cases, which is why I don't design parts very often. I'll definitely try for a setup for the TA7 that enables some unique configurations, but it's tricky business as a whole. At the very least I'll design it so that it's easy to expand on if people want to make their own parts for it. This assumes that I can get adequate time for actually working on it, of course. Take today as an example: I just got a new backup hard drive so even if I had enough free time to work on things my computer is preoccupied with zeroing and formatting that drive, which involves using a different OS than what I use for gaming-related things. As for converting the .tgas into .pngs, it should be fine if you do it that way. Just make sure the names are all the same and I believe it will work as-is.

I think it's great as-is. Adding retro engines would make it a bit too complex for the size. As it is it reminds me of CST-100 which doesn't have landing engines. I'll check it out whenever it's released, it seems to fill a nice spot between the stock capsules.

Lack Luster Labs has some parts that let you make a 747-like aircraft if you wanna check that out. What I've got right now is that front section you see above. I'm going to put everything in the same mesh initially so that everything lines up and then I'll split things up into individual parts. Making fully modular aircraft is tricky, but I'll see what I can do. In theory the engines and possibly the control surfaces will be compatible with things beyond the TA7, but for now the hull parts and whatnot will be designed for use with the TA7 exclusively. If I can find the time to work on it regularly I may eventually develop a whole line of aircraft parts kinda like the stock rocket parts or SP+.

747 equivalent right here, very early WIP but at least I've got something for it. If I can get most of it done I'll open up a community expansion thread where people can post stuff that they've designed to expand this mod. Thanks for that info, I've also had the blank KSO textures so I'll check out ATM to see if it fixes the issue.

I still can't fathom why people don't understand that if you buy KSP once, you don't have to buy it again to get the updates. Seriously, how do people get to that logic? If your GPU and whatnot are better than mine, you'll be able to handle these things with comical ease. LLL is a very lightweight mod and has a lot of larger parts that reduce the counts on the vessels in that video to low to mid double digits.

I'm running a Pentium G2020 (Intel, not AMD) and a GeForce GT 630 so direct comparisons probably aren't super accurate, but I can run anything up to 300 parts without significant lag, even with high quality settings and a lot of visual improvement mods. I didn't really build my computer with any particular game in mind, but I can play KSP at close-to-max quality settings and Skyrim on high quality with decent performance. Fun fact, I can also stream KSP at 30FPS, 720p although I have to drop a visual mod to get it there. If your CPU and GPU are comparable or better than mine, you should experience similar or better performance than I do. As Pecan said, just go for it and try playing. You'll never know how KSP will perform until you try it out.

Yeah, the Hitchhiker and Lander Can should be fixed if you redownload and reinstall the pack (I haven't had the chance to, I've been working on getting my Hackintosh back up to speed for the Yosemite update)

In that case, relative rotations are fairly easy, you should be able to subtract the rotation on the surface from the absolute rotation to get relative rotation, for example: Quaternion relativeRotation = transform.eulerAngles - surfaceRotation With that in mind, roll canceling should be as easy as setting the z-component of that rotation to 0.

Do you mean relative to the surface of a planet? That's a bit more complicated and requires getting the normal vector of the planet's surface, this UnityAnswers page might help. I'm booting up Unity on my end to see if that answer is valid.

Quaternions are a mess for humans to understand. Supposedly they're more resource-efficient, which is why Unity uses them, but they require years of study to understand enough to use. Quaternions are also immune to gimbal lock, which would make things very hard in KSP. I'd recommend using Quaternion.Euler(Vector3 euler) to convert from a 3-dimensional rotation to a Quaternion and Quaternion.eulerAngles to get a 3-dimensional representation of a particular quaternion. Probably the best way to deal with Rotations in Unity is to work with Vector3s when directly changing rotations and converting to Quaternions when assigning the final rotation.

Nice! The single-part booster can definitely use some texture work but that capsule is amazing! I'll check this out when you release it!

Make sure to check the OP for stuff like that, Ven's put extra parachute stuff and even a UnityPackage full of stuff to help with that in the first post.

I've gotten an active/passive system to work, but it's based off of the Soyuz or Apollo program's probe/drogue setup: And the results: The docking port can be grabbed from here: One-Eye Industries It doesn't look too impressive but it functions really well, despite being finicky and difficult to dock (more realistic, I suppose). I'd be willing to package this up so someone can take a look at it in Unity in order to get GBlake's request filled. I can't commit the time to this but I'd be glad to lend a hand any way I could.

I thought someone posted a link to download the original stock parts somewhere in the thread, but I can't seem to find it. Send me a PM and I can throw you a copy of my backup. Edit: Looked like someone was asking about it but we didn't get that figured out. Send me a PM via this link if you want the stock parts back.

Yeah, if there is going to be a heatshield then it should be its own part in Structural or Utility. If people want a unified Capsule/Heatshield then there's ways to weld models together and that can be released as an extra ModuleManager config. Offer both options and it won't be a huge inconvenience to either party, like what we see with the NASA IXS Warpship mod. (I think I brought this up earlier in the thread, in fact...)

Correct, 0.26=0.90. There was a whole article on the update and KSP's future starting next update. LINK: "Beta Than Ever" (in case you didn't see Crzyrndm's link) Definitely keep at it! Problem solving is the way I learned programming to the extent that I do without any formal training.*** It's really exciting when you figure out how to do new things on your own. *** I'm not a programmer by trade, it's just a hobby I picked up four years ago. I'm working on a standalone game with Helldiver (KSOS guy) but college for Aerospace Engineering is keeping me busy.

Basically, Squad has already thrown out all of the old Editor code and is redesigning it from the ground up to be a lot better, which includes a new, better sorting system. While I agree that Crzyrndm should keep working on this, don't expect it to be "a groundbreaking new mod that should totally be stock!" since stock will include something like this when 0.90 comes out. It's good for 0.25, maybe not so much for 0.90 and beyond.

Destructible buildings have to be coded as a part of the plugin that makes Kerbin City possible, although the Kerbin City participants have to make their own destroyed models for the plugin to use. Link to Kerbal Konstructs, the plugin in question. There's also the issue of whether or not we can expect a new build anytime soon, which is more important than whether or not destructible buildings will be added.

Yeah, this mod overwrites the stock textures and models completely (at least in the folders besides SPP) so other mods that use the old ones will probably have problems because those old items are gone, replaced with the new stuff in this mod.

That's likely the case, I've had this issue with non-KSO stuff many times. Yep, I'll talk to Helldiver on Wednesday (since that's the day I get back from fall break) and get him to put that PSA in the OP.