zzz

HyperEdit will make it even better. It beat MJ in almost any goal and more fuel efficient.

To land at the Mun, I suppose.

I begin to think these people don't need joints physics at all. Just leave colliders and destroy part on collision beyond treshold. All will be allways straight "like real rockets" and all happy.

As far as I understand : Game loads vessels, not parts. It's limit to load vessels just for perfomance reasons, not fundamental limitation. If part is detached it's become a vesssel. Vessel is just loaded as whole if it in the distance(center or any part, I m not sure, but more likely it's center). If vessel is unpacked - all parts of it will be rendered and functioning. So nothing will happen exept bad perfomance because of big amount of parts will be processed and growing physics glitches, not because it so long but because amount of parts in interact and thing will collapse long before you will build is this big.

Or to "claim" there is no difference. It will work in both way. But if people just imagine a difference, and pictures is the same - all will say which one where differently. (Do you really didn't notice difference?)

Almost any spacestation in ksp is mostly cosmetic they don't have real purpose so it's more about "looks like". (As opposite to rocket for which you need fuel and engine to make it fly. Or landing legs for lander to make it land better, or wheels for rover to make it to "rove") Most recognizable and familiar from pictures of reallife stations part is lot of solar panels so this is most essential component, if you need one. And second is strange, asymmetrical "I can't move and this is bunch of modules lifted separately and folded together" form - so you need doking ports. Beyond this there no essential parts, it's just about "what I want be there" imagining that this is something functioning and more about form rather than content. This question is more like "what is most essential LEGO piece to build a house" (-"I think you need some red ones, and maybe some of transparent")

How all this related to perfomance of shaders and post-processing?

Well, OK. I just always imagine this little differently. Underestimated the shape, I thought it mostly for help with drag and stream(all this vortexes and such). After all even some pieces of plywood or paper planes are flying.

But they need to tilt it some way anyway. This is what op said - he don't need to fly nose up so just tilt wing to create some positive angle. From which there was a dispute about in RL it's not needed, wing produse lift even if parallel to air stream because of shape and Bernoulli. But no matter how right Bernoulli real aircraft still need some angle because "lift coefficient of the wing is" not "high enough in a horizontal position".

Hm. Something inconsistent here. So And they need it isn't it? Because lift of the wing in horizontal position is not enough, especially at low speed. To tilt plane or wings on plane is not big difference, as I understand, it's about wich way is more handy for this plane

Regardless all this laws and how exactly this works - can wings maintain real aircraft in air at the same height(or even elevate) at zero angle of attack(with bottom plane of wing parallel to direction of moving)?

Sorry about derailing it again (thread is pointless anyway), but regarding fps topic I remember some pictures, there also was online test but I forget where it was . http://i.minus.com/iKuvI6jaWm9cy.gif(I decide to not overload page by big gifs) http://i.minus.com/iRShSUFLPSeAa.gif [non working spoiler]One of pictures at pair 30 fps and another 60 (intended to be by design - I don't know how well browsers maintain framerate of gifs, have different frame rate anyway) can you distinguish where which one?[/non working spoiler]

There no too much to configure. And you not need beast for it, with ksp there only simple bloom and some colorcolorection wich is almost free in terms of perfomance for most GPUs, all other effects will not work(at all or incorrect) without adjust dll for ksp by ENB autor(It's not meant topic starter). It only use gpu and video memory, so no any advantage form 64x(why all continue to mention this 64x everywere like it's something magically significant increase performance of everything)

This depend on how your control things can counter air pressure wich trying to bend you rocket. Depends on angle of attack and position of center and value of drag (leverage of forces) counter stream to bend it more. Depending on your speed and air pressure counter stream is more powerfull. So in dence atmosphere in conjunction with high speed it can be very powerfull. If it's become more powerfull then you control things can to counter it - air will win and bend your rocket and your rocket will spin. If you can move straight up with zero angle of attck(wich is barely possible becðuse of bend and sway of rocket), or if you control things always win - you can push with any speed if engine can handle drag. This is how I imagine and understand this. Right landing speed is when you not crash. 80-90 for jets, as all already said, is quite well, for me even 100-120 is well enough if plane still controllable and don't try to roll at the ground. Landing speed it's about amount of lift and control, as I understand. This thing can land even at 40 but it's threshold for it, at 38-35 it's fly like a stone. Really like this bird - very agile at subsonic(above mach 2 need to be gentle), takes off almost immediately, survive almost any maneuvers, very controllable and fly in any position. Also because of engines close to each other and with some FAR yaw damper I sometimes even not notice engine flameout(sometimes it become bad as expected but nothing fatal ). Yes, i'm bragging, and almost everyone did things much better, but you know this feel which KSP give, when you put pieces together and something actually work. It's also looks nice.

Today, as well as yesterday still tinkering my "strange lifter-duna mission-winged lander" I did it already but redisgn everything. "Lifter' is now reusable(for no reason) and it's actually can land and lander(intended to be shuttle) now will land much better - with previous one I crash 99 times from 100. But all this asymmetry, different COM at every stage and fuel depletion CoM shifting, and strange form and fuel distribution. So. Runway - 10k pitch-pitch-carefully - 15k - 22k - mach 3,5 - switch to rocket, oh come on - uncontrolled spins, rolls. SPH. Runway - 10K, ... come on SPH Runway - 10k... detach, oh - things stack in each other. SPH Runway -10k... This how it goes.

Looks cool( at pictures shader is not everywere, miss some things). I predict it will be hungry(realtime reflection usually hungry) so used 16x16 maps but, well, maybe it's just me but feels too much to regular use.

It's unrelated to ENB, no matter how much cpu or cores ksp use - perfomance and look of enb will be same. Unfortunately without proper support of KSP or Unity there not many intresting you can do with this resident evil version dll. Only, not the best, bloom and pallete textures. Little tinkering. No need to be so critique, he is just share something, for him it's cool - maybe someone else will like it. If you don't need it - just move away. Some people made textures someone don't like or primitive models - do we need to bash them same way?

Impressive work, not sure is it will have real purpose but interesting. Gold foil things, some people did it, can look better with it, especially with reflective bump, I think. How about add to it some fresnell falloff factor? For most things it's looks better. Bluring? Global switch with parametres(render all Reflective/Diffuse this way). I barely understand how it's work but can there be switch for rendering only sky\ground or skybox\planets if it will help with perfomance, for most things it will be enough, I think.

Hard landing. But at least it's more or less in one piece. Previous was even less successful: But usually like this: (this was intended to be "final picture" at first) Need to make it even more slow, only 0.2 atmosphere in deepest canyon at Duna. Or more effective brakes, maybe small engines. I hoped for orange parachutes, but it's dissapear at ground touch so does not help much. I lift small plane at Kerbin by this strange way because I can't lift it by rocket no matter how hard I try. I tried to put it on top, at side, at another side, two rockets at both sides, but without success. So I decide, if it don't want to fly like a rocket - let's fly like a plane. And it's fly well.

Centaur project. Nearly success after 2356 crashes.

Maybe it's only for me, or I imagine it, but it's sometimes, somehow related to height of orbit. Below then, I don't know maybe 120ú-150k, I do not remember, it's just yellow, but above it begin flickering and sometimes attach. This was multiple times - I was catching things at elliptical Munar orbit.

I posted it some pages back http://i.imgur.com/xOAIbZW.jpg

I made it. I'm already share(-ed?) them in ironcross crew support thread some time ago. http://www./?jbxl5xj6t3uyosx

áonstruction completed.

Munar doings(KAS fun): -This tri-docks is so problematic, bring some old-good clamp-o-trons: Much better