Beetlecat

What an amazing difference these displays make! I first saw them when playing with the KSO (it installs them automatically) but I wanted to do a proper install, and seem to have everything working well except for possibly mechjeb. I'm sure this has been covered/answered/asked, but I'm not clear on the current version & state of things. Do I still need the mechjeb part on the craft in order for the functions to appear on the displays? I've gotten the impression that it wasn't needed. I've wiped all mods and started from scratch, but I have to add the part in order for the autopilot functions to appear on the MFDs --which then also shows the MechJeb UI. I have gotten ScanSat to work, so general mod interaction is there.

I'm not a pro builder by any stretch -- but do any of the FAR sample planes fare any better? If they also fail, then there may be something glitched with the install of FAR. Sometimes gear position alone can help a plane get off the ground: slide your rear gear closer to the COM so your plane can simply rock back to increase the angle of attack and rapidly gain altitude. Canards on the nose can also help get a plane pointed in the right direction. There are some awesome guides available, but my favorite is this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/52080-Basic-Aircraft-Design-Explained-Simply-With-Pictures

Confirming this is still in 3.1 -- curious, the ALCOR uses pngs for the IVA graphics.

Cool beans. 3.1 fixes the window transparency using the original mod file. I may have been distracted by that mission enough to not notice, but there are quite a few other detail textures still missing when using LOD: --Maybe this is simply up to the mod author to do this "properly" -- I've not seen this type of thing on squad IVAs. And, to be honest, a minor annoyance for what LOD brings.

Yay! Cheers for that. Parts not loading -- by this do you mean texture replacer part textures, or are those still off-limits?

Well yeah. Editing it was my only option short of asking the author to "do something different" . I was curious to see how that cockpit differed from something like from B9 or other that already worked fine. PS offered 16/24/32bit, along with a RLE compression option (which I never checked) and only saving it as 32b ultimately worked, thus the larger file size. I'm guessing now that the "visible" alpha channel selected was less important than the least compressed format. Aside from couple of visual glitches--and my own explorations into the world of .tga, LOD seems to be working great, and I'm wondering if/why more people aren't trying this out yet. ---Wait a second. I tried a B9 cockpit and it was fine?! I'm using the .23.5 "fixed" version on curse if that makes any difference.

So I tried an experiment (and truly a shot in the dark, since I know relatively little about image formats) -- opened up the transparency tga in photoshop and the alpha channel visibility was off. I ticked it on, re-saved the file and voila! it now works in-game. The file is now also about twice the size, so I'm not sure that's a true fix, but it at least points to the precise problem.

Thanks Faark -- I ran KSP with only vanilla assets, the KN-2 cockpit (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/66502-Kerbonov-Kn-2-Cockpit-Module) and a fresh copy of the LoadOnDemand.dll in the gamedata folder (so it would re-generate the folder and thumb files). Vanilla cockpits are fine, but the KN-2 still has the black windows.

I'm getting this too with the Kerbonov cockpit. It's painting the window frames and the glass texture is there (smudges, scratches) but the "outside" is a solid dark/black. Is this similar to the alpha transparency issue as on the sensor boom a page or two back?

The rockets firing sound as if you're just blowing into the microphone. Thanks for this mod -- a great idea!

Cheers -- This is not easy I can certainly appreciate. My dream for this would be to be able to manually arrange the overrides so that whatever gets loaded last gets precedence, and that files are not *actually* over-written. I guess we're able to -re-install from the archives in the mod folder, but it would be nice to drag&drop re-arrange.

Oh! That sounds even better than the TAC balancer. Such logic! And ironically enough, Throttle Controlled Avionics would mean you *don't* need to balance the fuel as well, the throttles are adjusted for the wonky CoG shifts...

I'm just jumping back into using this tool and I'm a little puzzled on how to do the conflict resolution. I have one mod offering additions to another one, and I don't want *either* mod to own the folder in question. For the moment I'm just going to ignore conflict checking and just do it by hand.

I almost hate to say it, but "dependency" is the right word; at the top level, you *do* need the listed mods in order for the Compilation to work. Any mod user can easily poke into the archives and notice that yes, it's quite easy to *not* install certain components, but the compilation is still quite dependent on those original mods in order to work. There are semantic arguments for and against documenting every possible use and miss-installation of your mod, Proot, but you can't cover every use case. Maybe a small "*caveat: advanced installers may choose to *not* install certain components if they do not use the supporting mod" but in my mind, the people that would be selectively installing parts of a mod wouldn't need to be told that anyway. Cheers and thank you for this beautiful project!

This pack might be TOO MUCH for KSP to handle...

Hmm.. I'm messing something up. There's a solid line (curve) of the transition as I'm nearing space -- it may have something to do with the "HD Cloud Improvement" pack I already had installed, but installed "Better Atmospheres" on top of. I wonder if I need to wipe my clouds folder and start over.. :I Here's a better picture. The effect is as if the top of the sky just opens up to pitch black all of a sudden. Creepy!

Tedium and clutter?? That's what this game is about! Have you seen some of those 20-stage asparagus craft?

This makes a lot of sense but lore-addled folks may decry that "The altitude (above sea level) reading is based on wherever the instrument is located..." I never noticed that the radar altimeter (in IVA and used by a few mods) currently indicates distance from terrain to center of mass. If so, this mod could correct that to be to bottom of whatever vessel is doing the landing--minus the distance of the landing legs of course, but that could be calibrated per-craft: If the my landing legs extend 1m past the bottom of my craft (~wherever the radar is installed), the altitude upon touchdown should be 1m? Maybe that would only be doable with an actual "radar part." 'guess this wasn't a problem if landing craft and reentry capsules are relatively small. It was also fairly Kerbal-ish to simply fly at a moon, ignore the altitude, watch the IVA dial and keep your speed down. I may still prefer to keep the big numbers at the top showing the "sea level" altitude, with other mods providing the radar alt, but I like where this is going.

Well maybe to some extent, but the mass is well behind the lift--opposite what they should be for any amount of proper control. Plenty of stock craft work fine in FAR. In fact, the other winning craft have COLs where I'd expect to see them. The front-most tanks in the R-2 were also empty (or nearly so), and by filling them I was able to bring the mass a little forward, but it's still squirrely. I wonder If I somehow have a bad .craft file? Or did .23.5 mess something up?

Holy cow -- I tried flying these with the latest FAR and am having a devil of a time. The R-2 flips over immediately after take-off -- COG is way behind the lift.

...and there's another round of updates--not the least of which KSP itself. I'm not sure if it's RealChute changes or not, but the time compression no longer ceases at the usual cutoff points.

stupid_chris may wind up changing the thread title to include "now, with only four 'chutes in the VAB!"

I just plowed through this entire thread. I'm looking forward to seeing more! Just a quick observation though: were the skids done away with for a reason? It would seem an idea choice for all-terrain landing / space saving.

I think you summed it up well in your previous post -- so many of these mods (and the game itself, if we can all remember) are early in development. To keep up with the latest tricks and tools and visual effects it's going to be necessary to follow many topic threads. Sure it's easy to lose track, but part of what makes modding "fun." These folks are doing some amazing stuff for us. It's the least we can do to give them our patience. --- Now get that smoke working!

Try it again with just one added song -- you may be bouncing against the memory limit even before the game loads.