cBBp SPC Pack v0.4: Fixed Failcan RCS and added some adapter pieces. Enjoy.

[CardBoardBoxProcessor]

yes the model looks nice. getting it to fly will be another story :/ I am getting nearer to that time and it is going to be frustrating.

[CardBoardBoxProcessor]

decided to take a small break and integrate the United Unified Inter-Manufacturer Androgynous Kerbal Craft Dockur System Alliance into the Durgun Docking Ring part.

[CardBoardBoxProcessor]

Ugh. with out hollow or more than one Collision Node i really see no way of making the hit boxes how i would prefer. So until this issue is resolved I think this thing will be a piece of crap lol.

[venku122]

Ugh. with out hollow or more than one Collision Node i really see no way of making the hit boxes how i would prefer. So until this issue is resolved I think this thing will be a piece of crap lol.

Yeah we had a discussion about it in the .14 dev thread. Also your shuttle looks very high poly and I\'m assuming you\'re going to downscale it for release. IS there any way the uber pc packing Master Race could get the current model released as an option as well. It looks beautiful!

[Xemit]

He said it many times that he won\'t scale it down. Also it\'s not in any way hi-poly, it\'s just that other parts are unnecesary lo-poly. And unity can handle pretty much any amount of polies you throw at it anyway, so I don\'t think that that\'s a problem.

[CAPFlyer]

Just FYI, Microsoft FSX allows about 100x the polys on its models than Unity does (including the separate Virtual Cockpit and External models) and the difference in performance between a properly optimized high poly model and a poorly optimized low poly one is staggering. The high poly model will actually run faster than a model with less than 1/3 of the polys. It\'s all about how you use the polys you have ,not the number.

[CardBoardBoxProcessor]

I remove all unneeded polies and remove high poly stuff from places it doesn\'t need to be. But if i feel there should be detail explaining how something works construction wise i am going to add those extra polies

ans not. it is not getting resized. I might perhaps make a different craft that is not an SSTO craft but this is an SSTo and it\'s size is perfect for all the interiors.

[Xemit]

Just FYI, Microsoft FSX allows about 100x the polys on its models than Unity does (including the separate Virtual Cockpit and External models) and the difference in performance between a properly optimized high poly model and a poorly optimized low poly one is staggering. The high poly model will actually run faster than a model with less than 1/3 of the polys. It\'s all about how you use the polys you have ,not the number.

Do you think I\'m an idiot or something? It\'s painfully obvious that optimized models run better. I didn\'t mean that he won\'t have to optimize it because unity can handle it. What I meant is that those models are not by any means too hi-poly for a pc game. If this was a mobile game there could be some doubt. Those models can also be pretty much as detailed as it\'s needed because the ship is just that. You won\'t need any other parts to get to space. So even if CardBoard makes it so that it barely runs smooth (but still smooth) this won\'t be a problem since there won\'t be anything else to bring the fps down (also shut up about space stations, there\'s no way they would be so tasking). And before anyone else makes a dumb reply, I do not think that the situation described in the last sentence will in fact exist at all. And that is because CardBoard is a good modeler.

Fuck, I read that wrong.

Could you explain how exactly the usage of polys affect performance? I can\'t see a way how a badly made mesh with e.g. 1000tri would run worse than a godly made one with 3000tri. Unless you mean something to do with shaders. But to be honest, there\'s not much you can do with them in KSP, we can\'t even do normal maps.

[Spoot Knight]

I\'m kind of lost on that as well. I know in most cases textures are more significant than the model itself.

As an example, in this 13 year-old game, this model, with over 200k polies and four 4098x UV\'d texture maps:

Runs better than the original model with a mere 1,300~ polies and 15 tilemapped textures ranging from 16x to 256x.

Plus they\'re two entirely different engines, so I don\'t get the point in arguing MFS Vs. KSP anyway.

[CardBoardBoxProcessor]

welp. It just spins around in the air and space. No idea why it spins in space. in Atmosphere it blows apart or just spins like a top lol. :/ and none of the control surfaces work as wanted. this is very disappointing.

[Kryten]

It\'s probably an issue with centre of mass if it spins in space-it wouldn\'t surprise me, considering the way it\'s put together.

[Spoot Knight]

I\'d guess that because of the formation of the wings you can\'t place them symmetrically to give the craft roll capabilities, so you have four control surfaces acting as elevators / rudders, but no ailerons.

About the instability, I\'m entirely unsure of what could cause that.

[CardBoardBoxProcessor]

no the problem is the game doesn;t suppose stack/node attach control surfaces. if i want them to work it would need to be surface attach. But this would be very hard to do.

[Kryten]

It definitely does; the Vanguard has node-attach control surfaces.

[CardBoardBoxProcessor]

Oh yes. those work fine. But only that one axis. Thus why there is no rudder. Sakrun has run into the same problem as his. Node attached do not support rudders or Yaw control with elevators.

[CardBoardBoxProcessor]

and there is really no way to report this to harvester. he doesn\'t seem to be posting much.

[CardBoardBoxProcessor]

whelp. gonna stop work on the x-33 till this problem is fixed.

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=6049.0

if anyone knows how to contact harvester or report this it would be nice of you

[CAPFlyer]

Could you explain how exactly the usage of polys affect performance? I can\'t see a way how a badly made mesh with e.g. 1000tri would run worse than a godly made one with 3000tri. Unless you mean something to do with shaders. But to be honest, there\'s not much you can do with them in KSP, we can\'t even do normal maps.

It has to do with how polys are rendered. In FSX, much of the texture/effects rendering is done on the CPU (due to the nature of DX9). As such, when things like shadows are being 'cast' on the model and on the ground, having badly generated polygons can create a higher workload. Having an optimized model, regardless of actual number of polys, results in the effects and textures being rendered in a much more predictable fashion without excess 'faces' that create complex problems that have to be solved for rendering to occur. One of the biggest places this occurs is when developers (in FSX) have modeled things on the inside of an airplane and don\'t properly set their visibility as such. Thus, the interior of the airplane is trying to be rendered, shadowed, and everything else every single frame, instead of just the exterior of the airplane. Additionally, there are other parts that are 'conditional' for rendering like the landing gear. You can specify that once the landing gear is up, the system doesn\'t have to render them anymore because they\'re enclosed by the landing gear doors, allowing for resources to be freed up elsewhere. While the GPU can handle many more polys much faster than the CPU, especially through use of shader models, a badly optimized model will still place a significantly higher load on the GPU than a properly optimized one, regardless of how many polys each has.

[sarkun]

whelp. gonna stop work on the x-33 till this problem is fixed.

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=6049.0

if anyone knows how to contact harvester or report this it would be nice of you

Hey, you are my hero, don\'t give up!

I\'ve done a shitload of work this week so I\'m taking a proper weekend off and will be working hard on my pack. The latest idea I have is to screw the node attachable control surfaces, make them dumb fixed winglets and try making the control surfaces separate - surface attachable parts. This will multiply the number of parts but is better than spending another day figuring how the $%^&%$ does the coordinate system in blender relate to the one in ksp.

[XSP-Xenon Space Programm]

WE NEED THIS PARTS ;D

[RichieD76]

Did Martin Luther King 'give up' when white america was against him?

Did Gene Kranz 'give up' when Apollo 13 was stuck in space in a dying space craft?

Did Ludwig van Beethoven 'give up' when he turned deaf?

Did superman 'give up' when lex luther dropped a big ass chunk of kriptonite in front of him?

NO CardBoard....NO they did not! You my friend will be forever engraved into the history books with other greats for solely this mod!

If not for the community....do it for yourself. Your epic CCBP....EPIC

[CardBoardBoxProcessor]

it would work if I could get roll control and The rudder to work right. but alas...

http://youtu.be/VvKH3foD5JI

[venku122]

Solution:

Release it with an experimental tag

Let people fiddle with it to see exactly whats wrong

fix it

??????

Profit!

[CardBoardBoxProcessor]

people cannot fix the way the game works. Harvester would need to make it so that the game makes the control surfaces work properly when node attached. So unless people whine to harvester enough to get this change added to the next patch. this will not be coming out.

[CAPFlyer]

1) You putting up multiple posts referencing him to your thread doesn\'t make him do it faster.

2) He\'s already said that a massive rewrite of the aerodynamics code is coming and will coincide with the release of the Spaceplane VAB and not before. There are a lot of things that need to be changed and they will required the Spaceplane VAB to be fully functional to work right without breaking the rocket code. Before he can get there, he needs persistance and a few other items to work.

As such, you need to be patient. Whining to him won\'t help you, it\'ll just get you ignored because he\'ll get tired of you not paying attention to the discussions that have been going on since before you joined this forum and have continued since. There are pages of discussions on the C7 thread, there are multiple '[suggestion]' threads on the development forum, and elsewhere talking about wanting the spaceplane functionality fixed, but the fact remains, as it stands right now, KSP isn\'t designed to actually handle spaceplanes in anything more than a very rudimentary fashion and he\'s stated that outright, including on the Wiki Feature List.

I\'m glad that you\'re enthusiastic about developing for KSP, but you need to tone it down a bit because you\'re starting to come off as aggressive and forceful instead of enthusiastic and respectful.