Torminator

I have several duplicate GUI items. I couldn't guess which mod causes it. Sometimes I'll have 3 or 4 "Show Avionics GUI" or such.

We already addressed that.

I've been using .dae (and .fbx for animated models) with no problems, so I'd recommend those as well.

I also see a lot of meshes in addons that have blatant over-smoothing. It's what causes that strange, putty-like look.

Disable angle snap (Alt-C). The game is treating the wings like big cylinders for some reason. I actually have this when trying to mount any sort of object to the wings.

I'm working on a ramjet, but it's more focused on being cool than being realistic. Taverios aerospace mod has ramjets that are useless below supersonic speeds. Don't know how realistic you want.

Air intake area will also increase your drag. For the atm curve, the key goes from 0,vaccum, to 1,sea level.

I can contribute models if needed. My texturing abilities are subpar, however.

I'll add that it has additional value if you're using smooth shading (aka, blending vertex normals to reduce the appearance of hard edges), since it allows you to keep certain angles "sharp" while smoothing others, as Blender will not smooth split edges.

Knowing the attention to detail Ferram puts into his work, FAR most likely does.

My sincerest apologies for the double post, but I feel this is worth a bump. When calculating the drag for a part, is FAR looking at the visual mesh or the collision mesh? I ask because I made an engine, but putting it on my plane puts my Cd so high it barely fits on the graph. In-flight, it's about .9999999 as I crawl down the runway. That's 3200...thrusts there, and it goes a whole 90 m/s when it crashes into the sea. It IS also an intake, but that shouldn't cause problems, should it? The intake area is set as .1, like the stock intakes. I also went in and changed the collider from a box collider to one that conforms to the trapehedral (It's my word and I'll use it if I want to!) shape. Any thoughts? EDIT- commenting out the intake module did the trick, but I'm still a bit confused as to what was happening... is it that combined engines/intakes don't play well?

I like the Kerbal. Has a bit of an alien vibe to it. Makes it a bit darker and creepier, but still quite Kerbal.

Sounds like I've found a new first project idea... How hard could it be?

I never really thought about it until I read the Mass Effect codex entries. There's actually a great deal of interesting ideas on how to deal with heat in there.

I have exported meshes from Blender without converting quads to tris and they've shown up/been lighted just fine. I honestly have no idea about this issue. The only thing that comes to mind is vertex normals, but you say you checked that. How are you exporting from Blender?

Usually what causes KSP to run out of memory is large textures and/or a lot of models. Since FAR is purely a plugin, it should have minimal impact on your memory usage.

I can compete with neither ZZZ's skill or vision when it comes to modelling, but I had an idea for a basic Antimatter Reactor model. Essentially, an open chamber containing a set of gimballed rings. I mocked up a very rough animation in Blender, and then exported it in a tiny format for four seconds at low quality because I didn't have all night to wait for a good render... If you're at all interested, I can flesh out the idea, make it into a cylindrical casing, smooth the edges, etc... You'd obviously need some sort of wizbangs going on in the center, but I haven't entirely figured out KSP's particle system yet, and Blender's not at all. So....

I find SSTO's are quite easy in FAR, but like everything, it's a tradeoff. It's much easier to achieve orbit. While I couldn't even breach the atmosphere in Vanilla, I managed to get an SSTO from horizontal takeoff all the way to Mun orbit with FAR, but only after a substantial amount of reading this thread to learn how to properly design my planes. It's much more difficult to build a stable craft in FAR. Just like real life, the sorts of shapes that are good at going really, really ridiculously fast are not so great at going in a consistent direction.

In Blender, if you're working from one window, click the three lines in the upper right corner and drag to create a second window. In the lower left, there's a menu that probably is set on "3d View" right now. You may need to click the + to see it. set that to UV/Image editor, and make sure your mesh is selected in edit mode (hit A)

I believe that bug was fixed in the 0.4.2 update

Are you going to just tease us with that patch and then not release it? I would love that sort of in-flight info. NathanKell, I regularly find that cargo bays, fairings, and the like are not shielding parts. It's nothing consistent. The B9 bays will work one flight and not work the next. And Ferram, that re-write sounds intense. Glad to see you're putting all this effort into it, even if it will probably make things harder for my poorly-designed-but-good-looking planes. While I'm here, a quick question for the aerodynamics brains: Having wingtips that curve up; I recall that on actual planes, this helps reduce/eliminate wing-tip vortices, and I think I recall you saying FAR handled this accurately, but I'm curious if there's a difference between having them angled up and having them angled down. I want to say that up felt more stable, but it's hard to tell with my planes...

Not really absurd, it just trades difficulty in drag for difficulty in making an aerodynamically stable rocket. As for landing, I like to use drogue chutes at the top to stabilize, but if you're landing somewhere without atmosphere, transfer all your fuel to the bottom tanks. The heavy end goes down

Yes, as others have said, make sure you also install the gamedata folder contained within the "command pod patch" or something similar. Sorry about the Ninja Edit. I try to avoid double-posting for obvious reasons. I don't mind at all if you use the video! One of my goals in making it was to give a visual demonstration. I can try making demonstrations of other features, but those are much more dependent on my piloting skill. Avionics or not, most of my munar landing attempts result in SAD: Surface-Aided Deceleration. Docking it a bit less error-prone. I'll see if I can work something out.

I'm a Materials Science Engineering student currently taking two courses in theoretical and applied thermodynamics. So yeah, if you figure out what on earth it all means, let me know.

I'm still trying to figure out what a "Class" is and where they put my beloved functions in c#, but if I'm interpreting Majiir correctly, here's what I think might be a good way to do it. Mapsat scans the planet, by whatever means, and returns an elevation value for each point, depending on selected resolution. This information is stored as plain-text, or something similarly simple. I.E. lat/long/elv. When you choose to view a map in, let's say a 512x512 window, the plugin generates (is this even possible?) a texture file that is only 512x512 for the region you want to view, based on the relevant data points in the plain-text file (which could be unloaded from memory when not needed, no?). The detail is less, but since you couldn't see more detail anyway, it doesn't matter. If you zoom in, it dumps the previous image and reconstructs a new one at a higher level of detail. If you zoom out, it does the same thing, but regenerating a less detailed map. In this way, the "maps" are never stored as images, only their raw information, and the textures that are generated are fully procedural and much smaller than a full map image. Perhaps prevent the plugin from "Releasing" the data file unless there have been no user inputs for ~2 seconds or so, to prevent jerkiness while panning/scrolling. So, vector images, more or less. I'll admit to not QUITE being able to keep up with the coding talk, so maybe somebody already said exactly this, but hey.