MainSailor

Add that and Procedural Parts and that's where I'm at. I did download 1.1 and was pleasantly surprised at the performance increases I saw, even on my 'dev' laptop, but there's no way without at least those two that I would even consider playing for more than a few minutes at a time. To be honest, I am itching for pParts to be updated because I want to check out my textures under the new Unity 5 rendering (is it just me, or does 1.1 look brighter to folks?) but that's the extent of it. Be patient folks, development copies aren't meant for career plays.

I wouldn't expect them. Ferram responded on a Reddit thread that his copy of KSP is not through Steam so he does not have access to the pre-release. As well, he doesn't (rightfully) feel like supporting both 1.0.5 and 1.1 as long as 1.1 will be undergoing development releases.

For that screenshot, shininess parameter was not enabled, but testing later didn't make it noticably more so, at least in the VAB. Specular I think is 0.5, 0.4, 0.4 which matches some other parts. I think what's letting it down is that my metal base texture doesn't look reflective, it looks like milled stainless: ...when it should look more like polished aluminum: Which is why the Atlas pParts texture looks so good, because it has these reflective rays baked in. I just need to map out a gradient that emulates this look.

A Vens-alike! That came out great!

Agreed. I think the zebra pattern came out great, just the metal doesn't look 'metal' enough. I haven't had a chance to get back to this, maybe this afternoon.

No it's not really shiny or anything. I'm disappointed with how it looks right now pParts has a 'shininess' variable that can be changed, since I just wanted to at least drop it in the game to see, that screenshot didn't have any applied. I'm currently working on the base metal texture though. It looks great when I apply it to other objects, but for some reason, wrapped around that like that it just looks grey and not like stainless. Will update when I can though.

Hmm. I'm not sure it looks 'metally' enough. Thoughts, opinions?

I've unfortunately been sick the last couple of days so I haven't been at work to...work...on anything. But I think I'm going to port over (at the very least) the interstage series since (duh) that's what they were designed to look like. Will probably also do something that matches the same base white as the 'historical' series I've been doing so that you don't see that pFairings 'dirty gray' in the middle of your shiny white rocket. Heh no worries. Yeah the original pack was basically a monolithic download. One cfg and all textures in the same folder. The new pack will be divided up so if you don't use Gamma, say, you can delete that folder with it's own standalone cfg and it won't affect the other ones. So choose your own adventure, so to speak. I'll be moving out the historical textures into it's own release, they basically got put into 'Essentials' because that was just the working folder I've been using for the beta pack. Essentials should be just the pieces that are kind of multi role: Interstage, Charcoal, Ringed White, and maybe the ends. I'm also going to be working on an end texture that isn't just the solid grey (which now doesn't match any of the other greys/blacks used in the pack) because that was a placeholder from the original release that has never gotten replaced. And I totally agree with you about mixing and matching. I hate using some of the part pack engine fairings because it ruins the perfectly designed color scheme I've designed for them . I have only really kind of played around briefly with using pFairings for engine fairings since it always seemed really redundant, but since I'm playing at 10x scale, I'm finding I need to place more engines under stages to make them have a decent TWR. Although I will say SpaceY's multi engine adapters have been a life saver so far! And I know everyone is probably tired of hearing, but Europa is still coming. I'm still fussing on whether or not I want to keep it minimalist to match the historical ones or actually have a metal-looking texture. I have a cool texture I built for a non-KSP project that might work well...just have to see how well it would tile/wrap. I just haven't had a chance to work on anything since last Tuesday.

I just saw Tyler Raiz using Gamma textures: That's the SRB-X and IUS textures. Also, I may look in to expanding textures for pFairings since a lot of the RO folks use that for engine fairings.

Oh. No I didn't realize there was a dev version. Will grab it, thanks!

That's actually what started this...I was just looking for a way to adjust the height, I'm not sure which of the variables I'm supposed to change. Since I didn't see it in stock I'm thinking it's not SD's fault. I fully admit the issues I'm having are probably a bunch of stuff not meant to work well together

UL definitely moves KSC. And I saw no issues under a 6.4 rescale, only now that I've moved to 10x. Oh awesome thanks. Here I was thinking it was just a Kopernicus thing.

The Soyuz pParts or the fairings? The pParts will be in it's own folder in the next pack release (as part of the general restructuring.) Honestly though, since I've never gotten any feedback on those, I might just move them to their own release and take them out of the core zip. The new release will be designed to be far more modular however.

It's happening with Uncharted Lands. Haven't tried stock + SD yet. I have tested without any other mods (except maybe Procedural Parts & UL) on two machines. I will have to wait to get home to send you cache & logs, as my 'dev' computer doesn't have Sigma/Kopernicus/UL installed (although I suppose I could try.) I even tried knocking down the Landscape from 1 to at least 0.5 and was still seeing it. Edit: Dev machine doesn't have the same issue, but does still do something weird: (UL, SD, MM, no other mods.) ...and didn't do anything abnormal at all with just SD and stock planets. Although being my dev machine terrain might be kicked down pretty low on these settings.

This is probably more of a question for the Kopernicus folks, but, what is the setting I'd need to change to keep the KSC from clipping into the terrain? At 6.4x, KSC is fine but I'm testing out 10x and everything that is 'ground level' at KSC appears under the terrain. I tried reading this link (https://github.com/NathanKell/RealSolarSystem/wiki/PQSCity-and-PQSMod_MapDecalTangent) but PQS is not something I'm familiar with, so I don't even understand some of the explanations. I gathered that repositionRadiusOffset should be what I need to change, but when I change that, KSC doesn't appear to move, even when I change to something ludicrous like 1000 (which would be 1km, I thought.)

OK...I rebuilt the pack. I wrote the configs so that all the new fairings use one common model (not that the mu file for the fairings is particularly large, but I like optimization) and all three types use the same black or white texture (again, optimization.) This contains the 'classic' Egg and Conic shapes from the Procedural Fairings pack. More shapes probably coming shortly (including a shape like the Atlas 551 fairing that I have been testing.) You should delete your Black and White folders in the Fairings folder, because this re-writes the structure that the Black and White Soyuz fairings use from the beta pack. Otherwise If you're only using the Firespitter ones, you can still drop this in as those will remain unaffected (although eventually they'll all be pulled together into one release.) Here's the link!

That's great! If you can post pics, I'm going to put together an album of player generated ships when I do the next release. The reason I don't like the fairings I posted was because either FSTextureSwitch or some weird combination of factors was compressing the textures I built for the pFairings. When I do plain ones without the texture switching, they look great. Not sure why, and I never really dove into it. Not that many folks have downloaded the fairing pack, so either I'll drop them into the main pack as separate textures without FS or just release them separately. In the meantime, I'll be working on updating the 'new' textures with the pFairings default shapes and releasing those through the beta link. I'll let you know when they're up (probably Monday, since all that stuff is on a different computer ). In the meantime, you could also check out Gryphon's pFairings textures, that's who I stole borrowed the Soyuz fairing shape from. The only reason I'm using that is as a placeholder to test the way the textures respond with various shapes/curves, and that one just happened to be a good shape. I've also been using cBBp's KOSMOS URM fairings, which I love...I might be playing with those shapes as well in the next couple of releases. Also, Europa is coming. I started working with the textures this week but got pulled into another project. I don't currently have CS at home so it'll be Monday/Tuesday at the earliest before I can get those up.

More like the original PFairings shapes? I think I could put something together like that. In the meantime, the original Gamma ones are still up at http://bit.ly/fairingbeta, but those are the ones that require Firespitter and I'm not super happy with how they came out. Actually, come to think of it, I might be able to just write a new config that uses the new textures and defines the new parts with the shape definitions from the pFairings shapes.

Mine is kind of a mashup since I'm playing with a different planet pack, Uncharted Land's Kerbin is slightly larger I think. Currently I think my atmosphere ends at about 91km. Considering that on Earth the von Karman line is about 100km (although the atmosphere doesn't truly end there) I'd say that's a pretty good number. Although I haven't played with a 3.2x resize, I think that would be a good number (I can't think of any reason why not, I'd put it that way.) I think, once again, I'm borrowing from 64k. I think I have his RemoteTech config in there. I haven't edited the ScanSat files at all (in terms of scanning altitudes), just the terrain heights. Although with a 6.4 rescale I don't think it's too cheaty to also allow root mode for RT. I'm fairly sure KK just uses PQS coordinates, right? You can change the height in the settings there, it's relative to the terrain. There shouldn't be other issues with KK buildings, they'd apply just like moving the KSC with Kopernicus.

I am extremely familiar with this. My 'dev' machine is my work laptop with a middling graphics card that I can't run KSP at more than 1280 x 1024 with even a semblance of anti-aliasing. That obviously doesn't help when I'm trying to develop, oh I don't know, textures

Thanks! I'm still working on Europa, that should be coming out sometime this week. I'm also still seeing a hairline where the texture doesn't wrap correctly on the Jebstar stripes that I will try to fix and update today.

I'm not currently playing stock 6.4x, but I know with PaulKingtiger's 64k mod, it never took me more than 6500 dv to get into a ~100km orbit. I did not have FAR installed, but I cannot fathom how that would make the launch harder rather than easier. (Edit: in terms of delta v usage.) The DV map from 64k I think overestimates DV so that users wouldn't build a rocket to minimum number and then fail to get to orbit or fail to complete a maneuver after wasting a little DV. I also suspect the map was made before 64k moved over to using Kopernicus and some of the orbital parameters changed slightly. I've never used 7500 dv to get to an orbit lower than at least 1000km. I don't have my Mechjeb settings handy right now, but after about a dozen launches with Gravity Turn I found a profile that matches for the most part. A few rockets I have are overpowered at launch (SRB's to get off the pad with a low TWR first stage) and will fly 'above the curve' watching the ascent trajectory, but I have corrective steering enabled with typically shallows out the curve later in the launch. I find this approach helps because a rocket with a higher initial TWR will get a little higher than the curve early on, which will reduce the amount of time the rocket spends near max dynamic pressure with motors I can't throttle. It's self-correcting. I think my SMURFF settings are currently set to .5, the smallest rocket I have currently is using procedural tanks and the RSB engines (which are OP for a 6.4x rescale, I think) but is still 2.5m at it's base. It will lift a total payload of about 5 tons (including high energy upper stage) to LKO. If I continue to use RSB stuff I might disable SMURFF entirely, as I think it's still slightly cheaty to get to orbit with it. Also note that I'm not currently playing in career. I can't imagine trying to get even half a ton to orbit with stock 1.25m parts, at least without a comprehensive ISP buff to stock parts.

Only issue I've had with Scansat so far is I've had to rescale the max altitudes for each body. I didn't think about doing this with MM. It probably doesn't help I've left terrain set to 1 which leads for some rather...dramatic terrain on some planets. <whelp that's helpful, I realized the screenshot that would demonstrate this is on my gaming rig at home.>

New Vanguard, Redstone, and Checkerboard textures added, updated Thor stripe with the same detail Diamant texture has. Added Delphi (Delta II) blue texture as well. These are all now in the Beta Build zip.

Heh no problem. Those are 2.5m by I think 7-8 meters tall, and with textures set to full in KSP settings, they look sharp. I know that I have used the Ceres stage (the orange with the checker pattern) as high as 7m and it holds up pretty well. The big reduction was just changing the DDS conversion method to reduce file size, not texture dimensions. I am planning a reduced dimension size pack, but that would be an additional pack primarily for those concerned with memory usage (folks with under 4gb, etc.) Although with DTL and 1.1 coming soon I don't know that I will pursue that. Beta Build is now updated with Diamant, Thor Able, Jebstar (Juno/Jupiter Stripe), and Corestar (Juno-ish lower section.) Looking at Europa next but that pattern is making my head hurt already: Edit: I don't like the way this combines posts.