Neutrinovore

Thanx greatly for those updated configs, sir!

Dammit, man, every time you show a picture of a new part you're developing, that instantly becomes the part that I MUST HAVE RIGHT NOW!!! Lol! That utility bay is excellent, the design provides great functions all in one part. I'm really looking forward to this, along with everything else, of course.

I'm away from my computer, so apologies for asking you all to go on a bit of a scavenger hunt. The answer, Arch, is yes. I noticed that after I installed the newest version of BahamutoD's Armory mod, the toolbar icon was crisp and sharp, even with ATM aggressive installed. So just for grins I took a look at the ATM MM file that came with it (I can't remember if it stays in the BDArmory folder or if it goes into the BoulderCo folder with most other ATM configs, sorry), and decided to copy the same settings to my MechJeb ATM config, and it worked! So now I just use those settings for any mod's ATM config file that has toolbar icons. It's important to note that you have to get the file hierarchy correct in the config so that it points to the right folder within each mod that contains the toolbar icon image data, but if you're comfortable editing config files this shouldn't be too challenging. So, long story short, yes, BahamutoD has found a way to make the toolbar icons nice and sharp. I just copied his technique for my other toolbar-using mods. I hope this helps.

Hey, Baha, I just saw a mention of your very first part, the lander base with landing gear and engines for the stock Mk1-2 pod. That was a pretty nifty part for a first release, and considering that your skills have grown exponentially since then, I wonder if you might consider taking another pass at that part? Maybe update the design of the landing leg doors and also the legs themselves, give the textures a fresh look more like the current stockalike style, work your magic by adding some cool new gizmo to the engines, I don't know. I always thought it was pretty neat the way the engines angled out for certain situations, then could rotate to provide full thrust straight ahead. I just didn't/don't like the 'Rockamax Orange', that's all. Lol! Anyway, heck, maybe there's interest... scratch that, I KNOW there would be interest in doing a large 'critter crawler' version of it, there's lots of folks who have requested a larger (2.5 meter plus) size. I myself don't need the critter legs, so perhaps 2 versions, one with engines and 'crawler' legs, one with engines and regular landing legs. So, there you go. I'm just brainstorming. I'm sure you're quite busy with all of your various mods and projects, so if you don't feel the need to add this to your workload, it's totally cool. Consider it simply a friendly request from a fan. Keep on keepin' on, my friend!

I was thinking the same thing too, about the size. But, upon further reflection, if you placed them in 6x symmetry, one on each face of the truss, that would be a heckuva lotta radiator surface in a relatively compact area. Then again, it would also be nice to have the ginormous option as well, lol. How about this, Yogui? Make a version where the base of the part is the same size, but instead of three radiators folding out you get one triple-size one with the same aspect ratio of width to length as the small ones. That'd be pretty huge, I'd think. Plus, this would kind of follow the trend you set with having 2 different sizes of Icarus solar panels. Anyway, just a thought, throwing in my 2 cents. Later! Whoops, meant to ask Yogui: Hope the fixed trusses will be available soon? Unless I've missed a hotfix or something? I refer to the scaling problems with the essentially 'welded' 2- and 5-section truss pieces, where the sections of truss are too small, separated by gaps, and have the end attachment nodes out of place. Or, alternately, if anyone has revised config code for the rescaleFactor and node placement data, I'm more than happy to just cut-n-paste it into my files from here. Either way, again, merely a request.

Cabin lights look great, Nert. I actually think that windows with togglable lights, placed judiciously, create a more immersive gameplay experience for me than do super-detailed IVA views. I don't fly IVA, and if a cockpit or command pod or crew cabin or habitat module, whatever, has an IVA view, I'll go look in there maybe once or twice when I first fly the part(s), and then I usually totally ignore it from that point on. What I'm saying is, on my own personal list of priorities, lighted cabin windows comes WAY before any kind of IVA modeling. Besides, having too many IVA views full of Kerbals REALLY slows down my frame rate, so there you go. Not that we were talking about IVA's, sorry.

Just stopping by to point out a few minor problems I'm still having, or, I should say, a few things that I've observed that could, perhaps, be worked on a little bit: 1. Are you aware, Mr. Yeon, that there is still a small gap at the front of the drop bay, when attached to another part? It seems that there's a small offset of the attachment node location in relation to the actual end of the part. The rear node is spot-on, it's just the front one. Again, I only point this out because it's a strictly visual thing, doesn't affect the usability of the part. It's just... it BUGS me, man! 2. This one is of slightly more concern. I like the size of the new cargo bay, but it creates MAJOR lag in my game as soon as I place it on a craft. I mean, my framerate goes from 20-30 fps to under 10! As soon as I remove the part, the problem goes away. I don't know, maybe no one else is having this issue, but I wanted to mention it just the same. Oh, by the way, thanks so much for fixing the j-s adapters, they look great now, and they line up perfectly! Hopefully you can work similar magic on the drop bay node position and the cargo bay fps issues. Finally, I would like to add my request to those asking to have a version of the drop bay that does NOT have ends, so that 2 or more could be used together to create a longer bay. You might also think about creating a version of the cargo bay that has the adapter shape at one end, and is open at the other. That way, 2 could be attached at the open ends to make a double length bay. Or, separate the adapter part from the bay itself, making the bay a hollow tube with no ends. Again these are merely suggestions/requests. Keep up the great work, sir! Later.

All I have to say is this: "If time spent is enjoyed, then it is never wasted." I have no idea where I saw that quote (which I'm paraphrasing), or who said it, but I think it's appropriate here. Yes, we may all be 'wasting' our time continuing to post encouraging messages for AlexUstas to see, in hopes that this mod will be completed soon, but that's our choice. Put me in the 'hopeful' column, I still look forward to using this mod one day. Later!

Well, no, I'll respectfully disagree with that, Sirkut. The OP of this very thread clearly labels it the "Freelancer FL-1 Rover". Just sayin'.

Uh oh, It looks like you've discovered a new Kraken! It's… THE WATER KRAKEN!!! Although... uh... I guess that would make it just a regular plain old 'Kraken' Kraken, wouldn't it? Hmm, never mind... Lol,

It's interesting reading all of these discussions about the aerodynamics of this vehicle. First, I'll point out that I have absolutely zero education whatsoever in the fields of aeronautics, astronautics, or any other disciplines having to do with aircraft or spacecraft design, other than playing KSP for quite a while, as well as just having a general interest in 'cool looking planes and spaceships' ever since I was a little kid. So, with that being said, and given my level of 'expertise' on this subject, here's my considered opinion: I do not believe that this vehicle is physically capable of aerodynamic flight. That's in the real world, mind you. I'm sure you guys will be able to finagle KSP's and Unity's parameters, and take advantage of their many flaws and loopholes regarding physics modeling, to get this thing flying in the game. But if you think about how real aircraft are designed today, and the MANY designs that have been tried because they 'worked on paper' but never came close to working in real life, this concept is just too far out for me to think that it might be plausible. I'm not talking about the engines, btw. I don't doubt that their design can and will be developed to the point that they'll be capable of generating enough delta-v to get a vehicle weighing about what the Skylon does into LEO, using about as much fuel as the concept is projected to carry. No, my problem is with the wings. They're just too small to me, that's all. Yes, I get that the body itself will be capable of generating some lift... SOME lift. Not enough, though, and those stubby little wings won't be nearly enough to make up the difference, IMO. Also, what wing surfaces there are won't be able to exert nearly enough control authority to allow the ship to rotate for takeoff, or really to have any significant control in any axis to allow controlled flight at all, ESPECIALLY at takeoff when fully loaded with fuel. Eh, anyway, this doesn't mean that I don't think that a future version of this design can and will fly, but I'm sure that the final flight-worthy craft will have MUCH larger wings, and while it may be able to take off like an airplane, I still think it may require some sort of supplementary booster system to get it off the ground and up to a reasonable altitude before dropping that 'stage' and heading to orbit on its own engines and fuel supply. Anyway, these are just my opinions, and they're worth every penny you paid to read them. One more 'however', however. Even if I don't think this could fly in real life in its current form, I am very much looking forward to flying this in-game, so I certainly encourage continued work, it's really looking fantastic! Keep up the great work, Captain!

I'm liking this design more and more. Haven't seen the movie yet, but due to this thread and enthusiasm from others about the movie, I have seen a few pictures of the ships. I think I'll try creating something similar on my own (not a mod, just in-game construction, I mean) using the Wayland 'Warp Ring' part from a while back, which I still have in my inventory. However, if and when this mod is available, I'll most certainly be downloading it!

As a slight modification of this idea, I'd like to see (in addition to the above features) a drop ramp like the one from Aliens on the dropships. The ramp drops down on four hydraulic rams, but the rear ones don't extend as much as the front ones, giving an angled ramp to drive on and off of. Just an idea.

Hey man, thanks! Just trying to help out… Oooh, look, new parts!!! I see a crew compartment! And I like those large cargo bays, too! And adapters! Yay! We definitely need more of those. So, when do you think we'll be able to play with those new parts? Keep up the great work, sir! Later.

Oh, I think we'd all love to see continued development of this, plus additional parts for the now-stock Spaceplane Plus package, but since Squad seems to have sucked Porkjet inside their event horizon, never to be seen again, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. :/

I just thought I'd put this out there because I haven't seen anyone mention it yet. Has anyone noticed that the side adapter part, the one with the monoprop storage that's intended to be an intake adapter, the model or mesh, whatever you call it, isn't aligned visually? Meaning, attach one to where it goes on the other part, the 'T' shaped fuel tank/fuselage thingie, and then zoom in to look at where the flat face of the part meets the tank. It's all caddy-whompus! I first noticed it because the texture of the part isn't symmetrical, so even when mirrored the 'top' of the part looks different on each side. That doesn't bother me, but when I zoomed in to look more closely, I noticed that the back edge of the part was clipping into the tank slightly on the right side top, but on the left side there's a slight gap in the same place. This seems to be purely visual, the attachment nodes seem to be perfectly symmetrical, and I haven't detected any misalignment when attaching engines and using RCSBuildAid, so it's not like this is an ultra-critical flaw or anything. It's just a visually annoying thing, like the slight gap between both the drop bay and the wide fuel tank when attached to anything with the front attachment node. If I turn them around and use the back one they meet perfectly. Again, strictly visual, just pointing this out, fwiw.

Excellent, perfect! These are really the only three parts I find the current build to be lacking, honestly. Well, no, I take that back. I'd like to see half-length versions of the fuel sections, sometimes you don't want to put that much weight slash that long of a component in that particular place on the vehicle, that's all. But, if you don't feel like making such parts, that's cool, I should be able to scale the length myself in a cloned config file. Again, great looking parts, looking forward to future developments! Keep up the great work, Nertea! Oops, I just thought of something else! How about a version of the tail cargo ramp section that still has the 1.25 m engine mounts on either side of the door? For those of us that like that option, anyway.

Baha, dude... Wow! Just, Wow!!! Rep and kudos to you, sir, you win the Internet today!

Ahh, yes, thank you, that does look much nicer! Now we can put on any nosecone or, my preference, the shielded docking port just like you have in this latest pic. Well done sir.

I do, there have been occasions - rare, but it does happen - that a mod will show up on KerbalStuff out of nowhere, and sometimes several days go by before the developer decides/gets around to putting it on the forum or Curse.

Oh, jeez, I'm really sorry! I thought that maybe it was a deliberate design choice, for a reason known only to you. I'll do my best to pry my proverbial foot from my (unfortunately actual) big fat mouth. I really do like the look of these parts, so I will definitely add them to my game and eagerly await an updated command pod. Again, I'm so sorry for being so... dismissive, I guess. I hadn't really meant to sound that way, but reading my post again I realize that I was being a bit of a jerk. It looks like your work is of above average quality, and I'm sure that it will only improve as you continue to create new parts and refine what you already have. In conclusion, I certainly encourage you to not let schmucks like me discourage your creativity and abilities. You can do something that I'll never be able to do, and frankly that's great by me. You can create all kinds of neat parts for the game we both enjoy, and then we all get to play with them, yay! Keep on keepin' on, V1per!

I just have to say this. The only thing I don't like about this mod is the fact that the nose of the command pod is too small in diameter. There is no part in my inventory that looks good when placed there, and for some reason that REALLY bothers me! I thought that the screenshots in the OP were a trick of the light, or that you had some other part attached between the shielded docking port and the command pod, but no, it really is that ugly when anything of 1.25 meter diameter is put there. It's a shame, I was really looking forward to adding these parts to my game.

Heh, sounds good to me, sir! Of course I and, I'm sure, many others would like to have everything in a completely finished state yesterday, I do acknowledge that quality takes time, so you do what you need to do to get everything set to your satisfaction. That being said, screenshots are always appreciated, though, lol. Gives us something to drool over and look forward to. Keep on keepin' on, Absolution!

I've had some problems recently with 'cherry picking' parts packs, due to the relatively new but increasingly popular trend of texture sharing, and I think I've come up with a solution. If you don't want a certain part in the editors (VAB/SPH), but you have another mod that refers to that part's textures, the only thing you should delete from the folder of the 'target' part is the actual part .cfg file, and perhaps the model file (.mu suffix) if you're SURE that the model goes ONLY with the part you want to get rid of. But leave all of the texture files in place. This way, if another mod wants to use those textures, it will find them where it expects to. The advantage of this is that you avoid parts bloat in the editors, but the disadvantage is that the game will still be loading all of the textures into memory even if you're not necessarily using them. The only thing I can say to that is to use the Active Texture Management mod to reduce the memory usage as much as possible. Now, if you don't want certain parts from this mod, then yes, you should be safe in removing anything from THIS mod's folder that refers to the part(s) you don't want. I hope this info helps.

The truss scaling issue was the only problem I've been having with 0.25. However, I have a comment about the gravity ring... The four spokes leading from the hub out to the outer ring are intended for Kerbals to move through, correct? The problem is, they appear to be way too skinny to actually allow a Kerbonaut to use as a corridor. Even a snug one. To me, they should be at least double the size. Also, for my own personal part, I've scaled it up so that the hub is 3.75 meters in diameter. This makes the outer ring big enough in cross section that it looks like Kerbals could actually live and sleep inside. So there you go. I just think you could take another look at the architecture of the part and beef it up a bit in certain areas so that it looks like the Kerbs could fit inside, that's all. Nuff said.