NoMrBond

I'm using it in the part pictured above, it connects/works on the nodes specified as HINGE_JOINT's but I haven't had time to test further about the differences between the connection types sorry

If you haven't had a KSP runnable laptop for 92 days how are you doing the modelling? Also, what do you need to either fix the laptop you had before, or replace it if it's beyond fixing?

Yes, you want FIXED_JOINT for stack nodes (i.e. top and bottom) and HINGE_JOINT for radial nodes though. Do correctly specify your node sizes too

Huh, I haven't checked my GO based NODE{} connections yet, to the sandmobox! [Edit] OK, I think you will want your GO's Z+ pointed in the direction things will be attaching from for NODE{}. Picture better; [Edit2] Yes you want Z+

Depending on your level of adventurousness you can try development build direct from the RT git Level of risk unknown, could be full of bees, YMMV etc

RBray is definitely around, they're currently working on (overhauling) EVE whilst also helping blackrack with Scatterer. 1.0 has only been out for a couple of days, if we could please refrain from adding additional pressure or expectations on top of the authors own that would be fantastic, thanks!

Changes to the way attachment nodes work in 1.0 may make some parts not connect properly, as such users may need to enable the option to ignore connection orientation in the [ALT]+F12 menu to work around this Engine values are also going to be overpowered with their 0.90 settings as the old maxThrust was for vacuum, but it's now being used as sea level then being scaled up for vac based on the ISP floatcurve Fixes are in progress

There are a couple of new videos focused on adapting to the new aerodynamics system in 1.0 as well which may help Kerbal Space Program 1.0 - Launching Rockets To Orbit KSP 101: Very Basics and Orbit - Kerbal Space Program Tutorial

What happened to Marce bums me out :\ Sorry this really isn't the place for that, please pass on our best regards if the chance arises though.

Not at all, if you're touching down on the Mun anyway, you'll automatically pass through the 'sub-orbital' area for the contract. And if you're not touching down it doesn't cost very much dV once you're captured to briefly dip your PE to zero, you can then immediately do a prograde burn and pull it back out into a regular orbit

Being exposed to sunlight definately adds to your heat, although I'm not sure if planets are thermal stores/emitters/reflectors? I don't think there are problems with things being too cold (yet), but that would also been cool neat.

Oh dear, that looks like the 100% transparency thing, which I've previously managed to do to myself a lot by flattening a texture with an alpha layer. I think you can select the transparency layer and fill just that layer with 100% black and the RGB layers should become visible again? (depending on how it's been applied) [Edit] This was in GIMP where applying the alpha mask (i.e. turning it into a regular layer) does very annoying things

There are people are having trouble reaching orbit after updating from 0.90 to 1.0, so jumping forward two years worth of versions and immediately building a station is no small feat Seems like you're having fun though, good luck!

There is some unessary culling going on graphically with the MK16 parachute, the area's between the parachute lines cause everything behind them to be invisible like their UV's are set backwards and the sections between each line are getting culled, additionally if you get your camera inside the deployed parachute everything except the lines running from the hub to the canopy are invisible. The problem is not evident with the mk2-R radial parachute

Nodes are now strict regarding connection orientation, so if the vector/direction setup is wrong then parts won't attach because the game thinks they should attaching in the opposite direction. You can open the ALT+F12 menu and turn on the option to ignore connection orientation and they'll probably start working as you remember, but the part configs will need fixing now that this is the case.

Yeah, there is already a post about a 1.0.1 hotfix patch which we can expect soon, and before 1.0 came out Maxmaps said that features which they wanted to put in 1.0 but didn't have time for would arrive in a subsequent patch (like the delta-v readout for the VAB/SPH and engineers being able to supply the same for craft in flight). I imagine they'll want issues addressed to their satisfaction and the game will be in good shape before they start working on the Unity 5 update as that may take quite a while

I was with something like that earlier (fudging the rotation using the solar panel module)They're a bit big though (ok they're ruddy enormous @36m long), I'll have a look at making something a bit smaller

As above ^ Updating to Unity 5 is given as a high priority. We'll likely see a 1.0.1 hotfix patch for any immediate issues first, followed by a 1.1 update for features which were intended for 1.0 but were not be ready before Squad moves on to the Unity 5 update though.

You could try sending a private message to KasperVLD (community manager), or maybe even a developer directly You may even get a feature down the line like Ferram got for the aero where a mod has a flag for the game which disables the native system entirely.

Thanks for getting this updated so quick Any plans to migrate the textures to DDS now with stock support for it?

This happened live to Scott Manley during his live stream Havester was even in the twitch channel at the time, and said this has been fixed already (assume it will be included in the first post 1.0 patch)

It seems like the same kind of shielding limitation that Scott Manley ran into in the live-stream, HarvesteR said at the time that a subsequent vessel change should trigger a state recheck (also it has already been fixed for post 1.0 patching) So what if you stage the [interstage] fairings first, then decouple/activate separately in the subsequent stage rather than all together? I mean the conditions are different, but the same shielding check logic may apply?

During the 1.0 live-stream marathon, KSP devs would frequently be in the Twitch chats reporting that issues were being fixed during the streams, so I wouldn't worry about there not being a 1.1 (or 1.01 hotfix etc) to address issues Features which couldn't be satisfactorily incorporated for 1.0 (like the dV for the VAB/SPH and engineers) were comfirmed to be coming in post 1.0 updates As well as updating the underlying engine KSP uses to Unity 5 To aggregate commentary from Maxmaps; Development is nowhere near done, and there plans to continue updates for the forseeable future

I haven't noticed any issues between the two thus far

Cool, I had no other issue to report apart from that. D3DX9 does wierd things with texture mirroring (dx9 unity bug) that D3D11 mostly doesn't, short story D3D9 runs KSP out of memory and crashes and D3D11 doesnt.