zzz

But "Official and Main Tester For Crasher925's Star Trek Ships Pack" in same time. Just kidding. I forgot to add my usual "it's looks strange and don't fit at all" disclaimer Lot of trials and errors actually. And this was the first time I tried to mess with normalmaps, lots of nuances and mistakes. But thanks.

You don't like when I creating a new thread (I don't know how to say this properly)so I put it here: --------------------------cool separator------------------- Sphere tank I made for myself. Radial things is not very useful in KSP, but anyway. It's not very trim(?) and optimised (1k tris). It didn't have normal maps but if you want it for something small - better to reduce texture size (1024 currently) There several cfg with different scales and content(LF/LFO) in archive all looks the same, but this what I did for myself(and this is why it have strange attach point placement). You know how to edit configs, scale and resources. Better to put some struts on it. http://www./download/11g5bud6yij4eyc/sphereT.7z --------------------------cool separator--------------------- Cosmetic radiator --------------------------cool separator--------------------- It's made with interstelar plugin in mind but generic enough, little strange and about kerbals so I put it here too http://www./?58ne3h277ji4h6f It's Science lab by design {..added experimental interor, "door" and some windows are clickable but better not look too much around with it because it's not designed for this points of view(you can realise seat didn't have backwalls and such things} --------------------------cool separator--------------------- Tapered boxes: Screenshot from Unity: There five colors(not meaning something special, just nice and somehow distinct for different types of resourses, and how much was fits in my layout) and three sizes(half, common and x3). Not sure about current rescale I don't know how big or small it must be to be handy. Maybe to made it to be something tiny or maybe made something huge, or double amount and to make both. Need to find some purpose for it at first. And do not tell me that the label is upside down, I know it was maybe strange decision Link: http://www./?n34ph4xxyf0f6mk I'm sure someone already did such things, it was mostly about fit everything into the same 512x512 texture and still to be nice. So there only 1MB of TGA (And it uses this nice texture sharing system(or how to call it) which is not work sometimes for some peoples, not sure what special they are doing but there allways such peoples ) It's not the mod too much currently because containers not contain anything, but you can put something in it by yourself. But if you actually want to use it somehow and know what amount of what I need to put in it - I can make it. Or maybe someone else will make it, It's currently in utilites tab and "utilites" folder but if you decide to "organise " it differently - don't forget to edit path in cfg. ------------------------------------------------------------------ cool separator------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's in utility and without command functions Like Hitchhiker Storage Container but less Hitchhiker In two variants (because it's easy and if you prefer it to be more resonable fo space rather than shiny. just fast recolor of glass part ) http://www./?0rmnuctjt8pjrsa I tried to add "green ball" attach points in supposed places but without success. It's planned to be with some (small )attachable modules(addons) but not sure, maybe someday. ---------------------------------------------------------------- cool separator ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Merelin engine (with LV-T45 stats) http://www./download/omeve7dv11n3xw9/engine.7z ---------------------------------------------------------------- cool separator ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Not really a part, more like model I did years ago and never used It's a circle from ring pieces and dock pieces, idea was to create closed circle structure in KSP using docks abilities, it kinda works. More simple, just welded halves is included. Intended usage is station ring thing, you know. It do nothing but I just leave it here. http://www./download/1a42bftzg1tjbbg/circle.7z docks must be attached like this, little arrows to part, it's messy I know ---------------------------------------------------------------- cool separator ------------------------------------------------------------------------ And links to other things to put everything in one place : greenhouse http://www./download/jbxl5xj6t3uyosx/z_greenhouse.7z crosswalk http://www./download/ox1oac68zmb7thm/crosswalk.7z "mount" http://www./download/p9s29iio5fx7oci/z_thing.7z All works is "released into the public domain"(as Majiir call it).

Thanks for compliment but modelling is not my regular habit. Occasionally. I see someone actually tried it. Yes. it was idea to hide dock when build things for more solid look. It didn't work well and useless but looks cool.

z_Missing things(volume2): I made some parts - it's structural element looking like kerbals can walk in it (in opposite to girder). It not fit at all and looks strange but maybe someone will find purpose for it. To place "docking adapter" by right way is really tricky (maybe need to make something with node direction, but at least it's works) - main rule is to have "long horns" on top and in direction of docking. It's working dock module to dock with standart(medium size) clamp-o-tron. Intended mostly for construction http://www./?ox1oac68zmb7thm It's not something "in development", as well as any other my parts. Just thing as is.

Don't edit engines, there no harm but this is wrong way. Engines are correct - this is my part is wrong. This is mount2 (I knew it) and yes there can be some clipping(aven at OP picture), but I changed rescale to 1.015 when reu÷loaded it and it was fine.(with other must be fine with 1.010). I think you are too attentive, but glad if it helps.

Strange, when I look it last time it was fine(more or less). It clip nozzles but this is by design (not really, but I'm fine with it). Change rescaleFactor(rescaleFactor = 1.0xxx) in mount2.cfg (or what is your problem, look for name in the vab) to somesthing like 1.017-1.020 if it will make you feel better.

It's not request. (it must be in Add-on Development )I have my own part idea and need to decide it before to make it. It will have influence to design of this part. I think I have decided. I will add "adapter" thing and make it in two variations, so basically it's will be type A+ (additional part even when preattched). Or not. Why there no option for deleting threads? But if someone know anything special about topic I will glad to hear.

Picture not make anything more clear, it's just picture. (And I mixed up the letters) I will try to explain what dilemma I have.. Ok, in short - is this good thing to have build in dock module in part even if it not allways will be used to dock (maybe rarely)? Or better to use separate dock and only when needed. I not about more handy or pretty, I'm about more perfomance frendly and stable. And before you say about part count - I'm more about dock module (especially idle or preattached) influence and behavior

I load only one texture and tga is 4times bigger. And foldiers - there only one foldier - just put it in game data. What is, as to the user, the difference how it organized inside? It's have sense when you install lot of folders . I have some "just plugin" plugins where is no "plugin" foldier inside mod foldier but just one dll. Well ok, don't thought it will be such fuss, with previous "without thread" sharing all was much easier. Will do everything as you wish when awake.

Guys, OP picture is ingame so, you can see it - sometimes it works. Not need to "fix" anything in config or in folder structure. You must to have 0.20+ version of game and z_case folder must be in GameData(not in GameData/useless_junk/strange_things) and you'll find it in the end of "aero" tab (I place it there because my "structure" tab already overloaded) No, it should't I can. Maybe I have special KSP. I remove all my files from gamedata, download archive, put it in gamedata, launch KSP and parts is here(sorry for wrong "tense", imagine it in "past")

Because I dont want to make engine, It's not hard to turn it to engine but by this way it's more flexible. It was idea to make cover for radial engine because I was not happy with plates. Not to make another engine.

My hundredth post will be first thread z_Missing things(volume1): I made some parts - it's radial mount but case. Main purpose of it is to hold radial LV-N but it also can to hold LV-T30 or LV-45, I think from (a bit yellow)picture you will understand how it works. 3 parts - single mount and two double mounts. It not fit at all and looks strange but maybe someone will find purpose for it. To place engines inside can be tricky but I think experienced rocket builders is able to cope with it. Better is to overturn it temporarily to see engines nozzles Guys, I'm know what I'm doing here and how things work( ability to make this is some proof of it isn't it?), It's not my first part and everything is intentional(but some of the decisions you may not like or can be not really good but I has reasons for it), so I appreciate suggestions(not too much) but I not need your guides, it's not complicated thing. There no any "localised version" exist and I have last KSP (And you must have 0.20+ version for it) and for me all is works and as intended Reuploaded. Now with "proper" folder structure, in "proper" category and texture in TGA as suggested. http://www./?ayapzqgj9fpgqwb

Well, not too much, only "hammerhead" has some course deviations but not more then 5 degrees(durning most path is less) and in both models it was similar. With other two not more then one degree and I did 3 launches of eachh with use of dinamic warp at 1\2, 1\4 speed and results was similar- within the last digit-two - you can see it in stock model, ideally all numbers must be same, I think. But difference between crafts in FAR and acceleration in comparsion with stock is much more so some science still here, but not take it serious. And I think you use some needless overquoting here

My bad. By some reason(even help say I'm wrong but anyway) I thought there also drag in this equation, not sure why but for me "dynamic pressure" has more sense this way. I imagine like, depending on drag, force of air stream push different and this is mesure of it - is this have any sence? cd is independent from speed and q independent from drag so what is "drag force"? I'm beginning to understand that I do not understand anything. So: cd of "hammerhead" is 1.2 "Ksp-style" is 2.2 and "rocket" is 0.5 Have some sence for me. Roket seems to wins as expected. I'm not compare to physical laws, I never mention word "realism". I'm compare(without reason, just from curiosity) two different drag models (no matter how absurd stock is, and both are models, we not deal with the "reality" in the game - this models are our reality. Even if I want I can't launch same things in reality so it will be only "unfair" assumption ) and what difference FAR made (if any). Well, I can - but for stock all 3 will be same anyway isn't it? It does not take into account cofiguration, just mass, as far as I know. Even more "science" (It not without reason in quotation marks): Now better - I should give more time for it, now difference more noticeable. So in stock - no difference. In FAR, seem like, "rocket" wins and "ksp style" design is worst. But this is without nosecones, and no one build rockets in FAR without nosecones so results are useles but who cares.

It also cause existence of the game. There no too much better suited for this, non expensive, engines(can you point some?), so if Unity non exist - not sure ksp will be possible, and if Squad, small and not not very experienced(I'm sorry if it sounds insulting), in the begining decide to make own engine - next ten years it will be just pretty pictures sometimes and then abandoned project because lack of money, as it was with many other.

Some "science" here(parts are same but in different configuration.. Actually not, nothing to see here.

I have last Kethane, modulemanager and even remotetech and all works fine(seems like).

It is, but it's work by some way.(Has dispute on this issue proving that it works) (both connected\ undock right\ undock left ) (left is connected by two docks\ right only by one(pieces still same but one of docks is inverted and not connects) ) And one of my old stations

You need cpu with more core clock frequency, not core count, it's means "faster CPU" in more cases, for KSP especially. As well as "overclocking" don't(and can't) increase your core count in any way but increase performance of cores instead.

There nothing hard in it, just cut to pieces with dock at both sides, small enough to lift(4-5 pieces), move by tug-block(some rsc fuel, thrusters and control), dock, undock tug.(last pieces with tug-blocks at radial decouplers). Straight construction. People build at orbit much more complicated things. Disadvantage is - with docks it will not look so solid. Train. I begin to think - maybe somehow hide docks in shortest cargo bay picies, slightly recessed to minimise gaps, not sure is it will work as I imagine it.

It was yesterday actually Made big plane(nothing exceptional) to finally(avoided it previously) try B9 SABREs(even with self restrictions I used - feels too easy) and made video(can I post it?) of it (tedious, as almost all spaceplane ascend videos, if you not have cup of coffee and some time)

It's useful if you forget to make it and your probe thing is left without power and uncontrollable(if you actually want to travel to and reactivate it) Couple of times I also has situation when I have not deployable panels blocked by craft itself (was only at one side for example) and ran out of electricity(And lost control even of manned craft because of mods) so I eva and rotate craft by kerbal pushing to get some exposure. (It's not what this thread about but some story)

I thought the last ~3-5 years - "4-core cpu" it's every cpu(with the exception of some mobile options). Why it must do something special with ksp? It's can to be unexpected if it was "just got 10ghz CPU" or "50-core CPU"(first one, if existed, will be more interesting for ksp) It's not work this way. "64-bits" don't make it "allow using raw CPU strength" and don't need to "allow using raw CPU strength" in general(not allowing just some improvements in some cases). You need "multitreadeding" and "parallelization", not "recoding everything in 64 bits", if we talk about CPUs and cores. I'm not pretend to be specialist but this "64" is too common disorder in this place, everyone always insert it with or without reason. It's become ksp analog of "more boosters" in terms of perfomance. "My cursor is slow moving" - "need to make you mouse 64-bit"

Because it's more "fair"? But what difference does it? There is no such thing as cheating usn't it? You just do what you want have fun and sandbox and you know. Assuming you build rocket whith enough fuel why not just place in at moho orbit. And even if not - its so tedious to sit and wait again while MJ fly to it. Not a fun. Just hyperedit it and have fun.

Nasa not playing the game. It's already very simple in comparison with complexity of real spacecrafts. Simple rules, no consequences and even bricks can to orbit. But if flying is not intresing and you want to skip it then Hyperedit is much better and faster. What you want to say to me by it?