Kerbin Mini Shuttle

[ZRM]

The artist didn't properly mirror his texture. If I could get the originals plus an OBJ I could probably fix it in a matter of seconds. Of course that could probably only be done by Squad.

You'd be surpised. It's amazing how much is possible via plugins. Replacing textures is possible, and I think editing meshes at runtime is also doable. Of course it may turn out that this is not possible for animated objects due to potential limitations in Unity.

Edit: Here's a shot with the latest lighting. Please ignore the apparent dials in both the MFDs and the front windows.

Edited September 6, 2013 by ZRM

[DisarmingBaton5]

I hope you modeled a barf bag for Bill, looks like he may need one.

He is looking a bit green...

[helldiver]

ZRM that is exactly how I wanted them!

Did you pose them to hold the arrest handles? Or did we get lucky? Man that is spot on.

Those MFDs and the HUD need to get finished.

Once we get all of this out of the way, I'm going to update Analog_guages with a new texture for the scales, but not at the moment. What you have there should hold us off.

You explained that they didn't have to be linear? I forget. I don't think I understood the concept.

This whole non-linear thing is new to me.

[ZRM]

ZRM that is exactly how I wanted them!

Did you pose them to hold the arrest handles? Or did we get lucky? Man that is spot on.

Those MFDs and the HUD need to get finished.

Once we get all of this out of the way, I'm going to update Analog_guages with a new texture for the scales, but not at the moment. What you have there should hold us off.

You explained that they didn't have to be linear? I forget. I don't think I understood the concept.

This whole non-linear thing is new to me.

Yep, pure luck with the poses.

Only a static VSI would make sense being non-linear. That is what I was referring to. Have a look at any electronic static VSI for an example. Moving tapes have to be linear, but their intervals change depending on the current situation.

Just to clarify, you are going to be sending me a new set of textures (with each component in a separate PSD) for the PFD with the correct masks, right? I'm sort of treading water here, working on finishing up the details of the other parts (such as the cameras and lighting).

[sirkut]

The artist didn't properly mirror his texture. If I could get the originals plus an OBJ I could probably fix it in a matter of seconds. Of course that could probably only be done by Squad.

With the Universe Replacer mod you can fix this by accessing the assets. So far Squad hasn't thrown a fit over extracting that information.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44135-0-21-x-Universe-Replacer-v4-0

But considering your skill set I'm sure you can code one up.

[ZRM]

With the Universe Replacer mod you can fix this by accessing the assets. So far Squad hasn't thrown a fit over extracting that information.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/44135-0-21-x-Universe-Replacer-v4-0

But considering your skill set I'm sure you can code one up.

I didn't think Universe Replacer could do anything to meshes. Fixing the problem shown requires editing the UV set, because each shoulder probably currently shares the same UV space. You can't fix that with a texture.

[sirkut]

Ah yes the meshes. I keep forgetting they aren't mirror images down the center of the body. Hackish way would just flip that and the uv map and pray it doesnt look like garbage.

[helldiver]

It doesn't work that way.

If they are using a normal map (which odds are they are), we'd screw the tangents up by flipping the texture.

Again I'd need to work with the originals to get things fixed. Also, working on decompressed DDS is a big no-no.

Just to clarify, you are going to be sending me a new set of textures (with each component in a separate PSD) for the PFD with the correct masks, right? I'm sort of treading water here, working on finishing up the details of the other parts (such as the cameras and lighting).

For the MFDs and HUD that is correct.

Ok I see what you mean with Analog gauges. No, that would complicate things a lot and would require I do some UV separation which I really didn't want to do. The fix I'm going to do has to do with twisting the UV and the geometry so that the numbers and such aren't twisted, thereby clearing them up a lot more.

[ZRM]

Ok I see what you mean with Analog gauges. No, that would complicate things a lot and would require I do some UV separation which I really didn't want to do. The fix I'm going to do has to do with twisting the UV and the geometry so that the numbers and such aren't twisted, thereby clearing them up a lot more.

Uh, I don't see what you see I mean with analog_gauges. I didn't mention it AFAIK. Could you elaborate?

[ZRM]

I'm sorry, I really can't help but take more and more screenshots of this wonderful cockpit. (Also please, again, ignore the MFD panels).

Notice the reduced contrast on the windows and MFDs due to the lights being on. This is affected mainly by the specular exponent. I think I will need to increase it in order to reduce the low contrast effect a bit. By the way the glass is powered by a custom shader, since no stock shader provides transparency, an emissive component and a specular component at the same time.

[helldiver]

ZRM that looks so sexy.

Sorry for the Analog Gauges confusion.

I got confused with what you meant regarding linear marks, numbers, and such on the bezels of those gauges. So scratch that.

That Nav Ball looks fantastic. Did you clear up the issues you were having with it?

[ZRM]

That Nav Ball looks fantastic. Did you clear up the issues you were having with it?

The remaining problems are that the markers orient themselves by the central crosshair, so they seem to rotate around it, which is especially noticeable when they cross over the crosshair, and also the retrograde target marker is not visible. Ideally I would like to implement an improved navball module to fix these problems.

[DisarmingBaton5]

The remaining problems are that the markers orient themselves by the central crosshair, so they seem to rotate around it, which is especially noticeable when they cross over the crosshair, and also the retrograde target marker is not visible. Ideally I would like to implement an improved navball module to fix these problems.

Could it be fixed by moving the "crosshair" inside the navball? You would need to keep the crosshair texture on the exterior, though.

[qnistNAMEERF]

Please don't restrain yourself from posting screenshots. This thing is gorgeous. Good work, guys!

[TouhouTorpedo]

I'm a bit worried you could be falling into the same trap B9 did here. The rendering textures and dials all look lovely, but I can't see this being a useful IVA view with the eye level of the kerbals being below the bottom of the window rim. Personally, I don't see double clicking windows to get a better view as acceptable since you lose the benefit of the instruments. But otherwise you end up with the instruments and no view. So this could be an absolute nightmare to try and land.

Its one of the reasons I don't use B9 anymore, I just couldn't stand the IVA's being so disapointing to fly with.

[helldiver]

The view isn't to the Kerbal's eyes if I recall. ZRM explained it in an earlier post. He also edited the FOV of the camera to compensate for the narrow perspective. He explained it a few posts above.

Otherwise we have a solution where you double click the F/D button and get a central off-center control panel+windshield view.

Unless it is a flight simulator, it is -impossible- to provide a proper cockpit view, without having perspective and FOV issues. Unless you make a fully open cockpit (I forget the name of a mod) any cockpit of this sort you make will have FOV problems if you leave the default eye-level view.

FSX, XPlane and other simulators use a virtual perspective, or otherwise have 2D overlay panels on top of the 3D world view to get around this issue.

[Guest]

I'm a bit worried you could be falling into the same trap B9 did here. The rendering textures and dials all look lovely, but I can't see this being a useful IVA view with the eye level of the kerbals being below the bottom of the window rim. Personally, I don't see double clicking windows to get a better view as acceptable since you lose the benefit of the instruments. But otherwise you end up with the instruments and no view. So this could be an absolute nightmare to try and land.

Its one of the reasons I don't use B9 anymore, I just couldn't stand the IVA's being so disapointing to fly with.

It's a relief to see someone else express the same disappointment I experienced with the B9 IVAs. Frankly, the only truly useful spacecraft IVA I've used to date (as in being able to dock using strictly a cockpit window view) is frizzank's Gemini. A useful window view is, in my opinion, critical for normal flight.

[ZRM]

Could it be fixed by moving the "crosshair" inside the navball? You would need to keep the crosshair texture on the exterior, though.

No, it just happens to be that the rotation is about the crosshair - if you move the crosshair the problem won't be fixed, and the rotation will still be about the cockpit Z axis. It's a stupid hard-coded limitation within InternalNavball.

---

I'm a bit worried you could be falling into the same trap B9 did here. The rendering textures and dials all look lovely, but I can't see this being a useful IVA view with the eye level of the kerbals being below the bottom of the window rim. Personally, I don't see double clicking windows to get a better view as acceptable since you lose the benefit of the instruments. But otherwise you end up with the instruments and no view. So this could be an absolute nightmare to try and land.

Its one of the reasons I don't use B9 anymore, I just couldn't stand the IVA's being so disapointing to fly with.

Unfortunately helldiver had finished up his models and texturing before anyone had checked whether the Kerbals could see over the dash - he thought the Kerbals were quite a bit taller than they actually are. But it's not going to be too bad - the double click view need not obscure the instrumentation - it can just move the view up to where helldiver thought eye level was originally going to be. Also, if we get the ILS working properly you would be able to land even in (so far non-existent) fog.

The view isn't to the Kerbal's eyes if I recall. ZRM explained it in an earlier post. He also edited the FOV of the camera to compensate for the narrow perspective. He explained it a few posts above.

Uh, no, I was talking about the picture-in picture Kerbal-cams. I have no control over the first person cameras.

Otherwise we have a solution where you double click the F/D button and get a central off-center control panel+windshield view.

Unless it is a flight simulator, it is -impossible- to provide a proper cockpit view, without having perspective and FOV issues. Unless you make a fully open cockpit (I forget the name of a mod) any cockpit of this sort you make will have FOV problems if you leave the default eye-level view.

FSX, XPlane and other simulators use a virtual perspective, or otherwise have 2D overlay panels on top of the 3D world view to get around this issue.

IMO the best scenario to have in KSP is where default view gives you a good view of what's in front, and you can double click to get a better view of instruments or pop up a 2D window of an instrument like in FSX (which is very doable).

It's a relief to see someone else express the same disappointment I experienced with the B9 IVAs. Frankly, the only truly useful spacecraft IVA I've used to date (as in being able to dock using strictly a cockpit window view) is frizzank's Gemini. A useful window view is, in my opinion, critical for normal flight.

Not necessarily critical, if you have the right instrumentation, but yes, it's very useful. Don't forget that the cockpit will eventually be including an in-cockpit video feed from the docking port.

---

Here's a first attempt at a high visibility view. Remember that this view can be zoomed and rotated just like Kerbal POVs. Also please note that the PFD on the far left is a functional prototype, and the other displays including the HUD are placeholder images (thanks for those helldiver).

Edited September 7, 2013 by ZRM

[czokletmuss]

Holy moly! This has to be the most advanced spacecraft ever modded for the KSP. I salute you, ZRM.

[qnistNAMEERF]

Here's a first attempt at a high visibility view. Remember that this view can be zoomed and rotated just like Kerbal POVs. Also please note that the PFD on the far left is a functional prototype, and the other displays including the HUD are placeholder images (thanks for those helldiver).

Very nice. (I know it's the intent) But with that kind of view I would never use the exterior view again. Great job ZRM and helldiver.

EDIT: will the docking instrumentation involve something like this one: forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/43901-0-21-Docking-Port-Alignment-Indicator-(Version-2-1-Updated-8-17-13)) ?

Edited September 7, 2013 by qnistNAMEERF
to add question

[ZRM]

EDIT: will the docking instrumentation involve something like this one: forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/43901-0-21-Docking-Port-Alignment-Indicator-(Version-2-1-Updated-8-17-13)) ?

It will probably be similar to that, but with the UI overlaid on the video feed, and probably with some additional numerical readouts.

[Lyze Of J]

Jeez guys, you guys are really close to getting this mod released. I can't wait, also, what is the maximum payload parameters? Like width, length and weight? Also, is satellite retrieval possible, what is the reentry parameters?

[Thesonicgalaxy]

Man, all these pictures make me think you're an owner who is waving a dog treat in front of your dog but you can't give it to him due to some ant inside so he has to get it out first but he still waves and teases the dog. I can't wait for the release though!

[TheCardinal]

Just wait for it. No need to pressure the creator.

[dc4bs]

Just wait for it. No need to pressure the creator.

Hehe... You just made me think of this..

KIRK: What does V'Ger want with the Creator?

ILIA PROBE: To join with him.

SPOCK: Join with the Creator? ...How?

ILIA PROBE: V'Ger and the Creator will become one.

SPOCK: And who is the Creator?

ILIA PROBE: The Creator is that which created V'Ger.