blizzy78

Please be advised that I have not updated all those plugins yet for newer KSP versions. The tutorials *should* work, but you *might* get errors.

You might want to cut the video to just a short section where you have a question with (or tell at what time code to look.)

Right, I misunderstood the explanation of the word (that I never heard before) when I looked it up. I got it now I'll see what I'm going to end up with. Thanks! Actually, the yellow of the striping is merely a coincidence. There aren't that many useful prime colors that don't look awful.

They don't, sadly.

There's also a mbm2png tool that converts MBM files to PNG files. Which edges would that be? Regarding the mesh, I'd recommend making a slightly lower-poly version of it by removing that small ring on the top flat circle. Not remove it completely, but convert that into a normal map feature. It's just so small that it won't hurt if it's only done by normal mapping. Perhaps the complete inset of the top flat part should be done using a normal map.

I use Blender to also create the diffuse (=color), ambient lighting, and normal maps. I then combine the diffuse and ambient maps with Photoshop (just two simple layers combined with "Multiply".) Then it's on to Unity and KSP PartTools the regular way.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/64227-0-23-07-Feb-Smart-Parts-V0-4-NEW-V0-4-Improved-fuel-sensor-valve-and-altimeter

Yes, but tutorials are not only scenarios (which are simple save files), but they also include a DLL to drive things and guide you through. Of course that DLL can break due to KSP API changes.

I not so sure this particular part does, maybe aside from the odd scratch here or some dirtying the overall paint. Edit: Having had a look at your hubs, I think I'll try going with bolts around the corners and see what it looks like. This part does not. It's more like a structural hub, hence the "hatch" marks where docking ports or other structural pathways should be attached. Yeah, I had something like this in mind. Not that it's entirely a new idea or that there aren't part packs like that On a more technical side, I noticed that the VAB has a serious limitation in where you can place parts. That is, a part that defines stacking nodes always implicitly restricts which nodes of the next child parts can be used. For example, if a part only has the regular top and bottom stacking nodes, this will restrict the next child parts in that only their top or bottom nodes can be used. You can try that by using a lander can and the stock HubMax 6-way structural part: First place the lander can, then try to use one of the four non-top/bottom nodes of the HubMax to attach it. It will snap into place, but won't connect (stays transparent.) For my particular part here this poses the problem that it can't be connected multiple times in a sideways fashion. (It also has six stacking nodes like the HubMax.) I wanted to add a 2-way and 4-way interconnect to place between parts, but that is not possible without rotating child parts a certain way. (Depending on the implicit restriction imposed.)

Right, I'm a bit behind checking both the docking and the rendezvous tutorials. I *think* they should work without me updating them. OP could just try them.

Development version now available: Download BlizzWorksHabitat 0.1 This is a development release. Do not use for regular play. You have been warned. Includes: Structural hub Hub pathway cover plate (regular and decoupler variants) Rover base for better wheel placement Lookie: More shots: Comments are most appreciated

Better stop trying to wrap your brain around it

Change the inclination. 0 degrees is due east, 180 degrees is west.

OP tried to post this image (click for larger version):

Perhaps this can help: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newtonhtml/node42.html (Please note that the actual math is beyond me right now.)

Some of those mods were made in the times where having a part (and associated plugin code) was the only way to get into the system. Nowadays there is no need for parts anymore, but those plugins have not been changed. Which is to say, KER and MJ could both be partless plugins.

I've recently begun to get into Blender, and I'm having quite some fun. I've already did a first small KSP part, and now I'm wanting to do more. However, I'm not sure what to create next. I think it would be fun to do some modular stuff where players can mix and match. So, I'm hereby soliciting ideas and inspiration from the player base

No, it is intended.

It should work fine with 0.23.0, despite the warning.

Random number generator is random.

You can edit the thread title by editing in the "advanced" editing mode, or by double-clicking the thread title in the forum view (where you can see all the other threads.)

Please don't spread false information, thank you very much.

I think you are. Like I've said, it displays the relative inclination between your planned orbit and the body's orbit around its parent. For example, Moho's orbit around the Sun is inclined, so it would display the relative inclination between your planned orbit and that inclined orbit. This has nothing to do with axial tilt. (Again, this all does not seem to be what you were asking for - the relative inclination between your current orbit and your planned orbit.)

In the options window, there is a setting that enables display of ejection inclination. But that's probably not what you're asking for - it will show the relative inclination between your planned orbital plane and the current body's orbital plane around its parent body.

I don't think that is going to happen because that would require the Toolbar Plugin to communicate with those other plugins and tell them to open/close their windows. It also would have no way to know what is inside each window. At this time the Toolbar Plugin just doesn't really care what is going to happen when you click a particular button. It could do anything.