CP44

I haven't tried this idea yet, but I think his mod will be exceptionally useful for space stations and ships that will dock with them. My understanding is that everything defined for action group (I'll play with #6) stays with the group no matter what is in control. If someone has group 6 toggle an engine, clamp-o-tron release, or decoupler, and a station has group 6 set up for some lights... someone flipping a light switch on the station with that ship attached could be disastrous. (The front page's write up on "Docked Vessels" covers a work around that I like.) Requests/notes: For testing purposes and users without enough free keys, can this control panel be given buttons to toggle the action groups (this panel both a control panel and the way to edit groups) or make a separate panel to toggle/activate groups without keys/stick? 2. Joysticks currently only <= 4? I think the joystick test only supported 4 Joysticks (or Joystick[any?], 1,2,3,4). Due to KSP/Unity ignoring my joystick IDs and assigning stuff in whatever order it feels like and the use of PPJoy to fix some issues, I think the joystick I tried to use is "more than 4" and did not show up to the test and could not be assigned from the Joystick list. To avoid having your list grow, could that be implemented as "Joystick" selection (pick any or a number) and "button" selection (pick a number)? It's also been a few days since I tried this; if any of this is out of date or irrelevant, please let me know!

.25 Texture Issues... I did some hack-ety bashing to this mod trying to get the Runway and Launch Pad 2 textures to work properly. Now referring by Parts folder names... runway changes: Commented part.cfg "texture = Texture.png" to "// texture = Texture.png" launchpad2 changes: Commented part.cfg "texture = Texture.png" to "// texture = Texture.png" file "pad.png" renamed to "model000.png" file "model.mu" start with hex offset 7C746 and delete through end of file file "model.mu" start with hex offset 7C746 and add 0C 6D 6F 64 65 6C 30 30 30 2E 70 6E 67 00 00 00 00 (which is byte 0C (indicating length of 12), the text "model000.png", 4 bytes of null/00) ...it seems simple enough but that's not how I got to those changes :s Sorry if this is the wrong way to go about it, but hopefully it will be of use to taniwha or someone who knows what they're doing on the source side.

I loved the idea of carrier parts, both for water (for which they're to be intended), and for side hangar bays on space ships... Daedalus from StarGate series - http://stargate.wikia.com/wiki/File:DaedalusSummit11.jpg Carrier ship in StarShatter - ...likely smaller due to part count and physics loading, but I ran into a few problems and noticed a few things. In the SPH, the ship pieces (from the lift bays to the loading ramp) start rotated forward and exhibit odd behavior for symmetry... making symmetry and center-finding problematic. (I know symmetry was mentioned twice in this chain, but I did not read all 119 previous pages >.< -- any chance the parts were generated with mismatched axes?) The parts are split as the author decided... Runway deck overlaps the overhang and lift-bay structure pieces Quarter-hull seems to be the intended linking/platform piece (although I did have some success using just lift bays, hangar floors, and a runway). Only a full length runway is available to fit in the uniquely shaped and sized gap created between structure pieces, and the width is then determined as well (2 runways side-by-side are problematic for the chosen part division). Using a full runway encourages a minimum length (adding carrier pieces to both sides of the entire length) and resulted in a heavy minimum ship segment. The attachment nodes on the top edges of the lift bays and hangar floor pieces are vertically aligned. Granted I am probably doing a few things wrong, but I'm just giving feedback for a mod that instantly gave me happiness and ideas when I saw it. Here's my saved sample of trying to use symmetry for a single-piece-length side bay: http://postimg.org/image/gissqdh9v/ (you can see the depth conflict on the far caution stripe). (On a previous test model, I used powered Robotics hinges for front & back hangar doors. I figured bays that allow for fly-through might be a good idea for error-prone pilots, stunts, etc.) Many thanks, and best of luck! --CP44