MainSailor

That's actually a dealbreaker to upgrade to .90 for me then. I'd rather use LOD than .90. I wonder if I can just install the new Mk 3 parts in .25.

Chrome does for me occasionally on Photobucket albums. Typically if I move the window to another monitor or change the size of the window and then snap it back to full size it will move the photo around. It always just seems like it's the first photo, from what I can see.

Tweakable Everything will let you do that without modding the cfgs. AFAIK you can't toggle fairings without a plugin. You could provide configs that don't include fairings (as KW does) or ones that do.

No I actually think it's a glitch with the shader. I still make lift according to the right click stats. Just the shader doesn't show anything.

I've been flying a slightly modified Farseer and I'm seeing the same thing on the Rapiers. I thought it was just a funny rendering bug on the shader since the drag value shown in the pop-up didn't seem extraordinarily high. I'll see if I can get some screenshots next time I play. I've also noticed that at some speeds and altitudes, the coefficient of lift shader just refuses to show...like the whole aircraft is producing no lift, even though even at Mach 4 and ~20-25km it still out to be making lift somewhere. I'm chalking it up to the KSP shader and not FAR's code, as I've seen similar fuzziness with TAC's highlighting too.

Yep. The Saturn V tanks are like that because IIRC the tanks had a phenolic coating on them to act as an insulation. The DCSS tanks are orange because of the spray foam insulation that was the same or similar as the Shuttle's ET. Edit: Apparently the Saturn tanks were spray on insulation too. There's an old story going around about how North American hired California surfers to spray on the insulation on the tanks of the S-II stage because of their experience using spray foam making surf boards. I'm not sure how accurate that story is. The phenolic layer was the original design which apparently had issues staying bonded with the tank while it was filled with the cryogenic fuels. More here.

I'm at a loss then. On two different machines I have running Windows 7 64-bit, installing both versions of the C++ package got rid of the native bridge warning, and I had been getting that on both installs. And I already have the most current .NET install because of some of the other programs I have that use it. I don't get errors using wither the stock renderer or DX11.

Well no, I mean I've had this happen even on Wander's planes, sometimes even right at takeoff. Less than 200 m/s. It seems like it might be a conflict between KJR and the PID tuner. As soon as I uninstall either one of them I have absolutely no issues.

By any chance are you using KJR? I'm having a heck of a time with it enabled even when I turn aero failures off in FAR.

Wow...double row of LFO tanks rather than the triple hull fuselage we've become accustomed to. Just wanted to carry more fuel?

Any chance you'd release this and/or future Mark IV crafts? Between Farseer and Wedgetail I can bring lots of fuel/1.25m cargo up to orbit, but I'm still launching 2.5m+ parts on conventional rockets. I'd love to be able to fly 2.5m stuff up without resorting to my usual B9 overbuilt monstrosities.

I posted something on this a few pages back. Under Windows 7 64-bit, I needed to install both versions of the Visual C++ Redistributable Package linked in the first post (vcredist_x86.exe and vcredist_x64.exe). Note this has nothing to do with running the 64-bit version of KSP. Since doing that I haven't seen the native bridge warning pop up again.

A crew launcher that is not as....extreme....as the Kerbodyne Invasion? Otherwise, the lack of 2.5 meter parts currently limits the other options I'd ask for. Slightly off topic, but Sarbian has posted a MechJeb extension that help MechJeb 'understand' FAR atmosphere controls much better than stock. It won't necessarily help your SAS bouncing if the aircraft is not trimmed, but I've noticed it really helps dial in your pitch for the 15-30km regime.

This. When I was learning some of the data management/scripting features in InDesign, the Lynda.com videos were invaluable for learning the core features and the general workflow. However, I hated having to pause the video, find the right toolbar, then get my data in the right place to continue. Having a bulleted list was helpful because I could continually reference at my own pace. For learning KSP-specific modeling, even something as simple as a flowchart or pipeline graphic would be better than the hours of tutorial videos. And having already used Kipard's texturing tutorials means I'm already familiar with the semantics involved.

This is awesome! I've been dying to recreate these kind of shots in KSP: Now it looks like I'm going to be able to.

This is looking great so far! On the final version, are you looking to have a thrust plate or support structure to attach to the tank, like so: Jealous. I've never had the patience to make beziers bend to my will. (pun only slightly intended.)

I'd actually be very interested in this. As a graphic designer, I have no problems making textures. I re-skinned all of my KW tanks in the .22 days before they changed under the .25 release. But I've never made any of my own models and I'd have no way of knowing how to apply textures to new models. From a complete newb's perspective, I can only echo what others have stated, Unity is still a big mystery to me, and I haven't yet had the patience to learn Blender (or learn why I should use another program to build objects.)

I don't know coding but I know what it's like to replace half of the work you've done, and I salute you sir. You do great work and are a pillar of the KSP modding community.

Wow I'm not sure how I missed this. First Light released, and a new Anvil and new behemoth CORE SSTO?! Amazing!

Awesome to see the final release Nertea! This is great work! Seeing as this pack is all parts, there's no reason why it's not 64-bit compatible now...

You can, if your .cfg file uses the MODEL node. MODEL { model = model location in folder rotation = 180, 0, 0 } The rotation uses X, Y, Z axis, so you if you want to rotate top to bottom, you'd rotate on the X 180 degrees. You could also rotate the front back around by rotating the Y 180 degrees as well, if you wish. Be aware that if you attach nodes are off center you'll have to swap those too, likely. Edit: Even if your cfg doesn't use MODEL, but uses mesh= instead, you can still comment out the mesh line and just add the MODEL node in, you just have to make sure your part scale is correct. You can add scale = 1, 1, 1 (or whatever scale factor you need) inside the MODEL brackets as well.

Farm Simulator: Kerbal Edition. Can't wait until Daniel plays it.

That actually begs an interesting question, what does, say, the Ascent Guidance use as it's defaults? Unnamed Spacecraft's config? I think it's odd that it seems like new vessels bounce around between a default config and last used.

I think he's referring to the community fix made under .23 and .24 that changed the landing gear sidewaysStiffness (actually IIRC, reduced it) that greatly improved the B9 gear. As to whether it still applies under .25 I have no idea. I think the behavior of landing gear under .25 hasn't been an issue. This is the MM script I had in my backup directory: @PART[B9_*_Landing_Gear_*] { @mass = 0.5 @MODULE[FSwheel] { @sidewaysStiffness = 0.01 } } EDIT: Looking back also I think the mass was increased to help the old connection node system operate that determined node strength based on mass rather than (if I understand correctly) node size which is used now? Don't quote me on this, I'm not an expert.

Are you running a 64-bit copy of Windows? (NOT 64 bit KSP) I was getting that message until I installed *both* the x86 version and the x64 version of the Visual C++ files Faark linked in the OP. Now running LOD on two machines with the same setup and it's been working flawlessly.