[1.1.2] Kerbin-Side (v1.1.0) & Supplements

[The Fleet Master]

I'll leave this test of the Carrier and BD's camera mod here.

[AlphaAsh]

Need some input from thread-dwellers on an idea:

Change KerbinSide's release format to

A core pack

Then individual content packs (much like what you see in the OP already)

The "All in 1" would be discontinued and replaced with the core. The core would only contain the essentials that would give a "taster" of KerbinSide's content.

If you like the idea, suggest what should be in the core.

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

[Eskandare]

Need some input from thread-dwellers on an idea:

Change KerbinSide's release format to

A core pack

Then individual content packs (much like what you see in the OP already)

The "All in 1" would be discontinued and replaced with the core. The core would only contain the essentials that would give a "taster" of KerbinSide's content.

If you like the idea, suggest what should be in the core.

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

Well, it'll certainly make updates easier for you.

[Guest]

No,In my honest opinion the all in one should stay,Id like it that way because I dont want just the core and get a sampling,I want all of them and id have to add every single pack to get all of em,No offense though,just honest opinion

Edited October 16, 2014 by Guest

[drtedastro]

Need some input from thread-dwellers on an idea:

Change KerbinSide's release format to

A core pack

Then individual content packs (much like what you see in the OP already)

The "All in 1" would be discontinued and replaced with the core. The core would only contain the essentials that would give a "taster" of KerbinSide's content.

If you like the idea, suggest what should be in the core.

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

I like your 'new' idea, using the core and then whichever packs the user wants.

My 2 cents worth..

Thanks for the mod... Really great stuff....

[Sirrobert]

Eskandare, your aircraft carrier is tons of fun!

I made a

of my attempts to land on it. (excuse the compressed texture)

Don't real aircraft carriers have a rope to catch landing airplanes and stop them really quick? If so, the parachute isn't actually cheating

Need some input from thread-dwellers on an idea:

Change KerbinSide's release format to

A core pack

Then individual content packs (much like what you see in the OP already)

The "All in 1" would be discontinued and replaced with the core. The core would only contain the essentials that would give a "taster" of KerbinSide's content.

If you like the idea, suggest what should be in the core.

Thanks in advance for your opinions.

Well at the moment, I think there are to many packs, for what it's worth. It's a little overwhelming if you want to select which ones you want, and which ones you don't.

So maybe just consilidate the packs into fewer options? For example the 2 old KSC upgrades could be combined

[Volt]

Please, whatever you do, don't do a Buildcraft. I always use the all-in-1, and if I had to download every individual group of structures separately, adding maybe 20-30 minutes minimum to my modpack reinstall time, I think I'd give up trying. I mean, this is an absolutely fantastic addition to KSP, but downloading and unzipping tiny folder after tiny folder isn't worth any mod.

[BigD145]

A single pack, even with ATM, can break the game causing it to not even finish the boot process. We don't need 20 packs but we also don't need only 1.

[M251Speed]

My $0.02, Keep the All-In-One pack, but change the folder structure (if possible) to make it easier to install and update single packs or delete packs as needed. I personally delete the old folders whenever I update a mod, and I always have to wait until the full pack is released for Kerbinside because I don't know what items to delete before updating. With this idea, a core pack would contain the the shared assets and have a few extra launchsites, and the various other packs add the other launchsites, statics, and textures as needed. This way, I can keep all of my packs up to date between releases of the big pack.

[BigD145]

There are a number of shared assets that make folders difficult without having a lot of duplicates.

[AlphaAsh]

Most of KerbinSide's textures are pretty "low res" already but regardless, I just went through them and reduced the size of a bunch even more.

Low Res Textures: http://www.kashcorp.co.uk/KerbinSideLowRes.zip

Install in the usual fashion. Straight over the top of the existing textures.

[Eskandare]

Eskandare, your aircraft carrier is tons of fun!

I made a

of my attempts to land on it. (excuse the compressed texture)

Great video! Thank you BahamutoD. Although, the F-22 (Kraptor?) Isn't really designed for carriers. It's very much a challenge to land on it.

I believe the poles are antenna. Or something... It's based off the Admiral Kuznetsov class carrier.

Don't real aircraft carriers have a rope to catch landing airplanes and stop them really quick? If so, the parachute isn't actually cheating

Arrestor cables for the recovery system? Yes, but I haven't installed them yet because I'm trying to find a way to either implement InfiniteDice's arrestor system or come up with my own. Here is an early picture of my model with the arrestor cables installed.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Eskandare

[JDLENL]

You should totally add some kind of dirt track in the desert for testing rovers (or not ).

[Eskandare]

I'll leave this test of the Carrier and BD's camera mod here.

You should totally add some kind of dirt track in the desert for testing rovers (or not ).

I currently have that on my to do list. Currently working in Oceania Extras.

[Sirrobert]

Arrestor cables for the recovery system? Yes, but I haven't installed them yet because I'm trying to find a way to either implement InfiniteDice's arrestor system or come up with my own. Here is an early picture of my model with the arrestor cables installed.

http://i.imgur.com/DctgZNP.jpg

Are you saying that's actually possible in KSP?

Man if I could fly planes, I'd be so exited now

[royying]

Is this mod really not support 64 bit or just a disclaimer in FAQ?

[AlphaAsh]

Is this mod really not support 64 bit or just a disclaimer in FAQ?

No, it means I'm not supporting issues in Windows 64 bit. Try it. If KerbinSide causes a problem, try to re-produce it in 32 bit. If you can't, then the problem is Windows 64 bit KSP, not KerbinSide and no support for the issue will be provided.

[AlphaAsh]

Took some time off work to put a quick preview of Launch Pads 2 up. This is not all of the content - there's quite a bit more not in a complete enough state to show yet.

The VAB/SPH is exactly that, a VAB and SPH all in one. It's just a static so until medsouz and I crack Space Centre interactivity it's just for show, like the rest of KerbinSide.

The multi-launch does what it says on the tin. It's a runway, a helipad and a rocket pad. It could probably be abused as a boat launch too, although I'm working on something better for that.

The crawler way will be a modular set of pieces for those who like to make their own bases with KerbinSide's parts.

The tracking station isn't animated to save on memory but I thought it was about time I did something like this for bases.

Other stuff in the works: command centers, control and launch towers, blast barriers, kerbonaut centers etc.

[Abdu]

does anyone know why i don't get all the buildings and stuff ? i installed ALL OF IT IN 1 and i keep missing some buildings and trees around the KSC can anyone help me please.

[medsouz]

does anyone know why i don't get all the buildings and stuff ? i installed ALL OF IT IN 1 and i keep missing some buildings and trees around the KSC can anyone help me please. http://i60.tinypic.com/htzdlj.jpg

Those are part of Lack's KSC++

[Abdu]

Those are part of Lack's KSC++

Thank you so much

[Tw1]

New parts. Cool!

I hope you revisit the old KSC expansion someday.

TW1's K.L.C would like to present a critique of the current situation, and our recommendations on how it could be improved:

It adds quite a lot to the old KSC, changing it from a quiet ruin, to a busy complex. It doesn't look half bad, with luminous markings guiding planes at night.

But it does have some areas where it could be done better.

The existing, old style VAB forms the centerpiece of the space center. It is visible from most angles. Though it gets a bit lost when seen from above.

The new buildings could relate to the old VAB a little better, but do well enough, given textures are being limited to save memory.

However, the connection between the VAB and the launchpad is interrupted by the road, and the associated walls. This seems a little odd- how do they get the rockets out?

A revision might see that roads routed around the launchpad, or eliminated. If possible, adding some sort of crawlerway between the pad, and using areas of grass or paving to highlight the VAB and pad would be nice. At the moment, they're a little ignored.

Similarly, the Tracking Station is all on its lonesome. This could also do with something to connect it to the rest of the place. A path, something to highlight it, etc.

Matters are complicated by the site's undulating terrain. This does give some opportunities for interesting things, like buildings set into the wall.

This is fun to climb on.

However, problems.

This wall is 30M tall.

Kinda cool, but not very practical. IRL, earthworks would be used, the path set out differently.

The other runway to the south (from another pack, I think) has a much more sensible location.

Tidying this up, it would be nice to see a lot more grassy plains added. Maybe not everywhere, but most places.

This would be nice to see moderating extreme changes in level, or undulating ground.

And around paths too, like it is in some of the other packs.

The difference in height posses an access problem- it is hard to get to the middle. Again, it would be nice to see more ramps. At the moment, there is access to the outside at points, but not to the inside, where the old VAB is.And maybe the odd extra safety rail, even without colliders.

Two last things- this base is very clearly about aeroplanes. There isn't as much rocketry stuff going on. As well as that, the distinctive K shape of the valley is a little muted by the dark curvy shape of the roads. Two birds could be killed with one rock if used some rocketry-ish clutter, and fences to fill out the valley a bit more.

Thus ends this report.

It would be awesome to have an expanded KSC2 be different, but still as awesome as KSC1.

[AlphaAsh]

I like a lot of these ideas. A couple of things to keep in mind:

1- We flatten terrain a lot for large installations and facilities. I can't do that in KSP.

2- Modelling for good integration into terrain multiplies time and resource requirements.

By concentrating on making something look good, focusing on effect over detail, that overhead isn't there. I'd estimate 90% of players will spawn, launch, fly around KSC2. Then land, recover. Perhaps 9% will take time to explore in a rover. Perhaps 1% will get out of the rover. My efforts are directed accordingly.

EDIT - Readability.

Edited October 17, 2014 by AlphaAsh

[Gaalidas]

So, this thread has become really freakishly long. There's no way I'm going to search this entire thing for a specific issue, so I'm gonna put it here.

First off, some background. I'm running KSP on a heavily unoptimized laptop that was not built for gaming. It's stupid, I know, but it's what I have at the moment. well, okay, I do have a super computer of sorts down-stairs, but this thing is mobile and I have yet to set up a stable and secure way to remote in from my college, so there it is.

That said, I'm running several mods that reduce textures and what-not. I don't see how any of them could conflict honestly. The mods I'm using are Texture Replacer (harmless to mods that add new textures, especially if you don't use the compression system), DDS loader (unless I convert your textures to that format, there aint nothin' happenin' there), and LoadOnDemand (currently this is my only concerning one, but I need it to keep my performance up even with super compressed textures.)

So, this is what I'm experiencing. When launching from a runway (and only runways, launch-pads are not affected) the models for the runway and buildings themselves are textured with no problems, but the surrounding terrain is all screwy. From certain camera angles it randomly switches to a super low-res texture and when turning the camera around I get a high-res texture. This is not the main problem, because the high-res texture itself is where it gets worse. Instead of the normal higher-res texture, I get this solid color with these blurry black lines going through it, like someone replaced the texture with a grid-texture that they exported to a heavily compressed 5x5 resolution bitmap. Returning to the same spot without the runway (other building do not create this effect) the terrain goes back to normal.

I suspect that some parts of the models being used are made up of terrain-like slabs that are meant to reduce the sudden drop off the side of the runway and/or whatnot. if my suspicions are correct, then it is the textures upon those models which are freaking out in this way. I'm still testing combinations and configurations, but I thought I'd throw this out there and see if this is being experienced by anyone else.

EDIT: Holy Jeb's Ghost, that post was longer than I thought. And I didn't make nearly the number of typos I normally do. Am I even awake?

[Tw1]

I like a lot of these ideas. A couple of things to keep in mind:

1- We flatten terrain a lot for large installations and facilities. I can't do that in KSP.

2- Modelling for good integration into terrain multiplies time and resource requirements.

A fair point. Making the whole thing flush with the ground would be a little excessive.

A few well placed grass textured ramps would go a long way.

I like to use it as measuring stick for testing the range of planes, and as another launch center for station parts.

Edited October 18, 2014 by Tw1