Hyomoto

Holy smokes, I only missed checking this for a day or two I thought. FIVE updates? And wet wings? A simple thanks seems shallow but at the same time, thanks! EDIT: It seems that control surfaces have their trailing edge lengths snapped to zero. You cannot edit them using the J interface, or the right click interface. Changing the shape seems ... wonky as well. If you click on the slider in the J menu, you move the menu around instead of changing the slider.

Unfortunately no. Since AJE includes KAX configs, I figured I'd give it a try but as I said I think either it's a limitation of props in game or something is wrong. I appreciate the advice though. I didn't know that props might apply torque, it is feasible the plane was too light then.

It's like Legos. Sure, they probably all have official names but I need a grabber and a turner and one of the flat turners. I know most of the engines by the thrust they produce, for example, so I slap a 215 on there.

Personally I'm of the mind they shouldn't be trying to maintain compatibility with anything. I mean, should they avoid changing part performance or weights because rockets won't go as far as they used to? It's silly and only limits what Squad can get done. It sounds like Squad is using a straw man to justify some of their changes or non-changes, 'some players might not like these changes'. Woah, news flash! It's a boogeyman. It might scare some children tucked into their beds at night but most players will get over any discomfort pretty quickly, especially if it genuinely improves the game. If they want the aerodynamics to be more game than simulation, that's totally fine and understandable, but trying to make sure they don't affect things people built previously is short-sighted and continues a dangerous precedence of believing that the original systems were somehow better.

Bugs? Bad. Squash. We agree. Some are the developer's fault whether due to lack of experience, future planning or simply providing a stopgap for progress while others are undeniably faults of Unity. But, like the editor which was just rewritten and the aerodynamic model which is being updated, to the expanded interest in space planes and multiplayer, the game has evolved to suit wider tastes and the developers simply didn't plan for every contingency. That doesn't mean there are no problems, but to push defense as mindless fandom is just as stupid as claiming they've purposefully ruined the game or refuse to improve it! The thing HAS improved, constantly and with every patch. The game is bigger, better and has more content. There are problems the developers want to address, a major one being the memory limitations, that you cannot write off just because it hasn't been done yet. And yet, here people stand over empty plates complaining that their meal should be free because the steak was overcooked! Did you honestly begrudgingly force yourself to play, hour after hour? And now, hundreds of hours later, you have the audacity to say "I didn't enjoy myself at all, that was the worst ride I ever went on. I just had to ride it 6,243 times to make sure it was as bad as I thought!" Sorry, you cannot say "This game sucks, it's terrible, it's horrible. You think it's great, we think it's not." and have logged more hours than you did for multiple games put together. Does it have issues? Sure. Some more pressing than others, some are a matter of perspective but if you want to simply trash the developers because you are 'so fed up after having been entertained for longer than every movie you've ever watched combined', you can sit down now.

I tired out a propeller from KAX, but had several problems with it. I'm sure at least one is my lack of understanding but I want to know if any of this is intended behavior or something else is conflicting. First off, when I started the prop at zero throttle it started up, then died out and wouldn't restart without reverting to launch. So, I tried pushing the throttle up to full and as soon as I pressed space the place started moving forwards, became uncontrollable and veered off to the left. I thought maybe the landing gear was positioned badly so I moved it to the fuselage from the wings and it proceeded to perform the same maneuver. As far as I can tell the hard pulling to the left and the instant application of thrust are probably not intended, but it could obviously just be a limitation in how the propellers are handled. Like I said, I'm trying to figure out if this is expected or if something might be conflicting, any thoughts?

I assumed it would be problematic but I wasn't thinking a 'proper' camber. Something unimpressive like an offset between the height at the leading and trailing edges to let your basic shapes handle the illusion and remain compatible with a box collider is beyond enough, though I can only visualize the end result. However, this isn't a suggestion, just a description of what fueled my question. In KSP the approximation is usually more valuable than a rigorous model and these wings already border on too good as it is. Composition is clearly very important to you, it's interesting to see a technical mod from the viewpoint of an artist.

Woah, hold on a second. I said visible camber, I never mentioned FAR. Thanks for shoveling all those words in my mouth, I actually had to double check where I posted. It has been asked exactly one time in this thread and, considering this thread is about B9's procedural parts, FAR and camber has been asked about exactly zero times. I'm asking if there are plans for VISIBLE camber. As in, B9, do you have any plans to allow for visible camber? Which, barring the b9 part, is exactly what I wrote the first time. I asked that on purpose and I was careful to phrase it that way.

Do you have any plans to include camber? I know it would likely just be a visible thing, but it would be great to get away from the pancake wings. When someone shows you something awesome you can't help but dream a little.

Hmm, love this idea. It's sort of the start of 'equipping' your Kerbals with gear, though honestly I'd never given much thought as to what equipment they would use beyond the RCS pack. I like Karamazovnew's idea as well, it would spruce up scientists a bit too.

Yeah, it's not working entirely because some of the functions are not, such as the view snapping back to the original angles.

The way that the scene is built in KSP means you really only have to render the weather separate from the scene and apply it as another layer on the view. It may not be what rbay is doing at all, but it's certainly within the realm of Unity's capabilities. I mean we've seen the effect used countless times and it would be a much cheaper alternative than trying to create volumetric or particle-based weather and would work in or out of cockpit mode. I imagine we'll see stock weather come along one of these days, there's no way Squad isn't interested in it at least at a basic level. The real issue would be seeing the weather at a distance, but you might get a decent effect with animated billboard sprites.

Yikes! It's an invasion!

I found a 'bug' or maybe just a 'possible unintended behavior'. This is an edge case so I'm not really sure what it would take to fix or if you'll even care, but here's the scenario: There is the cockpit up front and a crew cabin in the back. If you transfer the pilot to the back cabin the autopilot ... freezes? Then when you return to the cockpit, depending on how much time has passed, it kicks back in with a scary vengeance. As far as I can tell the steps to reproduce are simple, move all the pilots out of the cockpit into a non-command container, wait, the move one back. The way to fix it quickly is to turn it off and back on again because you still have no control authority (or not much depending on what's enabled) because the system still thinks its running, and even if you try to set your targets again it continues on it's path.

Just wanted to pop in to say thank you. 14.6 has been the best version yet, flying has been an absolute delight.

Well, I hadn't used BB until now but my first 'planned' ditch (note to self, figure out efficient altitude before mission, fuel is important). Splash down speed was just over 100m/s. As for the sanity check, if you are looking for one it might be G-force related. The reason my Kerbals survived is because I bleed off as much speed as I could, pulled the nose up and let the rest of the craft eat the momentum. As for 'parts spinning', some of the pieces go berserk when they hit, but everything comes to rest nicely. The command pod kept going wild for a while because I forgot the yaw dampener was still active. Time to test part two of BB, building a plane that can go and pick up the survivors!

Pictures sir, PICTURES!

So proot, how long until we can get something like this? I figure you should be just about done

That ... is definitely a challenge. I use Flight Assistant for those long journeys, I hated micromanaging a single plane for an hour, I cannot imagine two!

Haha, challenge accepted I see! Wonderful pictures guys!

Well, it seems I was about to dig something up for the crash but honestly whether or not this is useful at all I wouldn't know. At least I found some information. I was holding down 'g' I think, forming a pWing when the game crashed. Here's the end of the output_text.log (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) stage count is: 0 (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) Proceduralwing2 added to ship - part count: 13 (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) stage count is: 0 (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) Proceduralwing2 added to ship - part count: 14 (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) [VersionTaggedType] found KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.KnownPartMarker_1_7_2_0 for KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.KnownPartMarker (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) [VersionTaggedType] found KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.KnownPartMarker_1_7_2_0 for KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.KnownPartMarker (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) stage count is: 0 (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) tlsf_create: Pool size must be between 3208 and 1073745020 bytes. Crash!!!

Honestly, Kerbin doesn't get enough love. People who build planes almost always post photos around the KSC, rocket enthusiasts usually only ever see it from space. Yet, out of all the planets and moons, it is the most recognizable by land mass and coloration. Make your next mission the far side of Kerbin, see the wonders of home!

Considering how ungainly planes are in stock ... maybe? EDIT: I found something on that crash. This is from the output_text.log: (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) stage count is: 0 (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) Proceduralwing2 added to ship - part count: 13 (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) stage count is: 0 (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) Proceduralwing2 added to ship - part count: 14 (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) [VersionTaggedType] found KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.KnownPartMarker_1_7_2_0 for KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.KnownPartMarker (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) [VersionTaggedType] found KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.KnownPartMarker_1_7_2_0 for KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.KnownPartMarker (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) stage count is: 0 (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) tlsf_create: Pool size must be between 3208 and 1073745020 bytes. Crash!!! I don't know if it's pWings-specific, but these seem to only happen when I'm working in the SPH with EE installed. I launched several large missions yesterday including adding a piece to my space station and flying halfway around Kerbin and back in a plane. No crashes until I started building a new plane, and not until I started forming a new set of pWings.

It's so beautiful! Giving it a try straightaway!