• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SciMan

  1. Once I unlocked the Dadelus engine, I made large craft to transport things around the solar system without having to wait for a transfer window. The craft functions very well, but the engine effects don't seem right for an engine of that size. Only a rather small blue flame, which I recognized as an old stock particle effect. Since the Dadelus engine was so good, I unlocked the Kerbstein fusion engine expecting even better things. As far as performance goes, I couldn't be happier. However, once again I saw the same old stock particle effect being used. In neither case does that small blue stock particle effect match what I expect to see when I use such a large fusion engine. Here's what I expected to see for the Kerbstein engine (around 4:08 in the video): I looked into the issue to see what is going on, and I found that both engines are still using the old ModuleEngines, and I'm almost certain that it doesn't let you use custom particle effects. Inside the Kerbstein drive I also found a hint that changing over to ModuleEnginesFX is on the to-do list, as well as an effects node that would likely work if the engine module was changed. Since I had downloaded a copy of the master branch while testing the new RCS thruster effects, I have a copy of the source code that is only slightly out of date. I've read the patch notes of the newer versions, and I'm not aware of any changes to the Kerbstein or Dadelus engines in any newer versions of KSPI so what I'm looking at in the source code should be current. Looking thru the source code of the Dadelus and Kerbstein engine controller part module, I only see ModuleEngines come up twice in the entire DeadalusEngineController.cs file. To me it looks like simply changing those to ModuleEnginesFX would do what is needed, but that also seems too easy to be the only thing that needs to be done. The majority of the other engines and nozzles in KSPI have already been updated to use the new effects system, however I don't see any of them using an actual stock engine module. I know that programming can cause things that look easy to be next to impossible, but I'm hoping that that is not the case here.
  2. @Brimarx post reminded me of a question I have regarding reactor balance of a different reactor. The Fission Fragment Reactor doesn't seem to be good at anything you can use it for. Sure, you can connect every single type of nozzle and/or generator to it, but none of them can make the reactor run at more than 50% utilization. Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem like you would want to choose that reactor when you have so many other choices available, especially the Tokamak and Stellarator fusion reactors which you can unlock at roughly the same science cost. Is the intent perhaps that the other 50% of the reactor's power should be added to the waste heat load? That's not what happens as it is. Is it supposed to be a dead-end technology? I thought there were none of those in KSPI. Everything in KSPI seems to have a niche, even if it is quite a narrow niche. Except the Fission Fragment Reactor. If it's meant to be an entry-level reactor to some more advanced version of the concept like a fission fragment sail, I would understand, but no such thing currently exists in KSPI, which makes the final node related to Fission power reactors rather unappealing to research other than as a means to upgrade the performance and power output of the Closed Cycle Gas Core nuclear engine, and improve the power output of the standalone Gas Core Reactor. In other words, it doesn't make sense to unlock that tech node because you need the fission fragment reactor, because the fission fragment reactor has no optimal use case, and does not lead to any fission power or propulsion part that has an optimal use case.
  3. On KSP 1.5.1 still, but I might have found another bug. I'm using a craft that uses a Beam Core Antimatter reactor connected to a Charged Particle Direct Power Converter to provide Megajoule power to an Alcubierre Drive (Heavy). However, the issue does not occur when the Alcubierre drive is operating, as I never use that in time warp (goes plenty fast without time warp). Under high time warp (100,000x), I'm seeing a message pop up in the upper middle of my screen saying "ran out of fuel for Antimatter", and the console is spammed with a "power production too low, clearing buffer" message. When not in time warp everything behaves normally, and when transitioning from high time warp to normal speed the symptoms disappear. Despite the warning, the issue does not cause a reactor shutdown, does not kick the Charged Particle Direct Power Converter offline, and does not leave the craft completely drained of Megajoule power once returning to normal speed. Additionally, the Antimatter trap is never empty. I'm well aware that I am not going to get full power out of the reactor unless I use a Magnetic Nozzle, but being able to harvest reactor fuel in space outweighs that downside, and the greater efficiency of the Charged Particle generator compared to the MHD electric generator used with a Positron Antimatter Reactor considerably reduces required radiator area. On a different note, is there any progress regarding the issue of the Universal Drill IntakeLqd pump not working? Using the newest build of KSPI compiled for KSP 1.5.1 did not fix the problem in my "testing" install of KSP (copy of the Steam directory, only Squad, Making History, and "mod under test" installed). I have also returned to my lander in a methane lake of Tarsiss on my GPP/OPM/KSPI etc. (heavily modded) install, and it's not working there either (as I expected, if it doesn't work in the testing install it won't work anywhere).
  4. OK, got back from Christmas dinner, made a vanilla install from my Steam install (which I keep vanilla because I don't want Steam updates breaking an on-going game, I'm entirely capable of doing that myself TYVM) New install is on my SSD, only Stock + KSPI dependencies. Started a new science save file, used cheats to unlock everything (because "testing purposes only" and I'm running science mode in my main save / main install). Made a test craft, kept it as simple as possible. IntakeLqd pump still doesn't work for me, when splashed down in Kerbin's Oceans (right off of the end of the runway, and out a bit so I'm not able to touch the ground with the drills). Here's a picture with relevant part action windows and resource display enabled: EDIT: Almost forgot, this is on KSP 1.5.1, no idea if the bug exists on 1.6.0 as Kopernicus isn't updated for that yet, and I won't even think of updating my main save to 1.6 until I know the critical mods are updated. I could probably make a clean copy of 1.5.1 and then let Steam update KSP to 1.6, then check that too, if you need me to, but otherwise I don't think it's worth it as not much really changed between 1.5.1 and 1.6.0 as far as plugins go.
  5. I'd have to do that on a vanilla install, but I can do that when I get home from Christmas dinner. If it doesn't work on Kerbin's oceans, there's really something wrong with it, if it does work, there's a problem with it being used on different planet packs. Either way, there's something not working right here
  6. Found another bug, this time it's with the ISRU drills. I don't think they're working correctly for non-stock planet packs. The atmosphere extractors work fine, but I know for sure the Universal Drill does not work correctly. The planet pack I'm using is GPP, and I'm not having any problems with it despite not being updated for 1.5.1 because I'm using the 1.5.1 version of Kopernicus. Still running KSP 1.5.1 because most mods aren't updated for 1.6 yet. I have a ship that has plenty of power, is splashed down in one of the Methane Lakes of Tarsiss, I have plenty of free space to store lqdMethane, according to the GPP files that biome's resources are set to have 100% lqdMethane 100% of the time, yet the Universal Drills I have attached to my ship won't take in any IntakeLqd and give me lqdMethane. When I try to activate the drills intakeLqd pump via the part action window, I get the message "Vessel is not splashed down", which is obviously nonsense. KER reports the situation correctly as "body: Tarsiss, Biome: Methane Lakes, Situation: Splashed". My guess is that it has something to do with not reading the biome and/or situation masks correctly, or something wrong with detecting ground/water contact in the drill itself. Then again, I'm just speculating, you probably have a better idea of what's going wrong than I do. The stock drills work just fine on GPP planets and moons that have stock Ore. I tried the Universal Drill on Gael (starting planet in GPP) as well, didn't seem to work in the ocean despite being splashed down. GPP has CRP resource definitions set for every planet and moon, so I'm not sure what's going on here. Here's a screenshot of what I'm talking about, with all the irrelevant details like my Mechjeb windows removed.
  7. Well I found a bug, but at least it's a minor one, I think? The RCS works as intended except for the sounds. Effects, and thrust production are fine. Display of RCS ISP works in flight and in the VAB. Display of maximum RCS Thrust does not seem be included anymore (was a useful tool to figure out what scale the RCS thrusters should be). I tested every Arcjet and Resistojet RCS part, and I got confusing results. Each part has only one axis on which the sound works, every other axis is silent, but the axis that produces sound is different for every part. I mounted the RCS parts all on the same side of my test craft, but for each one I had to press a different key to get it to make sound. I made sure I only enabled one RCS part at a time. All RCS parts were set to use Hydrazine, and power was supplied by a 1.25m Positron Antimatter reactor connected to a MHD generator, with 10.13 GW max heat produced and 14.06 GW worth of radiators. The MHD generator reports a max theoretical power output of 7.6GW in the VAB, so I know I have enough power. I can't think of what could be wrong, maybe some sort of different handling for each axis of the RCS part, and sound only works on the "first" one? That's all I have, and it's just speculation. If the max RCS thrust was removed due to re-writing the RCS code (it looks like it was re-written), it would be nice to have it back, and it would be nice if it gave the max thrust output for the selected propellant instead of just the max base thrust output.
  8. All I see is a bunch of source code, and adding /releases to the end of the link doesn't bring up anything. Not well versed in how to use Github, the most I know is how to submit an issue, and how to navigate to the releases, that's all I've needed to know so far. I'll try to figure it out on my own, back when I played Gmod I figured out how to use SVN without any help, so I'm probably more rusty than anything. Some googling on my part should put me on the right path. EDIT: Yep, figured it out on my own. Thanks for fixing the issues with the RCS thruster info, sound, and effects! I'm going to launch a test craft right after I finish this post to see if everything's as it should be, but past experience tells me that your code should be good. I'm the person who came up with the concept for the QSR way back when, you were a good coder back then and I bet experience has only made you better at it.
  9. While we're on the topic of visual effects that don't look right, there is absolutely no sound or particle effects coming from the powered RCS thrusters, but as I figured out a post or two ago they function fine otherwise. Thinking about the Kerbstien drive some more, the config looks like it was saved part-way thru switching it over to use ModuleEnginesFX instead of ModuleEngines, because the engine module is ModuleEngines but it has an effects section that likely only works with ModuleEnginesFX. I don't remember if there was ever a time where that kind of effects section would have worked with ModuleEngines but support for that was likely dropped before the Kerbstien engine was added (before I returned to playing KSP, I had been playing on KSP 1.2.0, and the version of KSPI I was using then did not have the Kerbstien engine yet).
  10. This time I think I have an actual bug, not just a "how I thought it works isn't how it actually works" situation. I think I found a visual bug in the exhaust effects of the Kerbstien Fusion engine, and investigating the config files for it revealed things which may or may not work, depending on how the engine model is set up. When running, the only exhaust effect I can see is a rather small stock engine exhaust. I thought the visuals didn't look right because everything else in KSPI seems to have a custom exhaust effect. Maybe that's because I'm running RealPlume-Stock, it seems to work fine but I don't remember if it's updated for 1.5.x or not (wouldn't be the first time I've run into something that looks like it's working fine but is actually throwing some errors). Either way, I looked at the config for the Kerbstien engine and found evidence that the effects I'm supposed to be seeing don't match what I am seeing (actually 2 configs that are identical except for file name and part name, not sure why that is). EFFECTS { multi_plume { AUDIO { channel = Ship clip = sound_rocket_hard volume = 0.0 0.0 volume = 3.0 3.0 pitch = 0.0 0.2 pitch = 1.0 0.8 loop = true } MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE { modelName = Squad/FX/IonPlume transformName = T-T emission = 0.0 0.0 emission = 0.25 0.5 emission = 1.0 2.0 //speed = 0.0 0.0 //speed = 1.0 1.0 } MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE { modelName = Squad/FX/fx_exhaustFlame_blue transformName = Smoke emission = 0.0 0.0 emission = 0.25 0.5 emission = 1.0 2.0 //speed = 0.0 0.0 //speed = 1.0 1.0 } } } The engine's effects config does reference the stock IonPlume effect, but it sets it to a different transform than the thrust transform, and IDK if that transform exists in the model or not. If the model does have that transform, then the bug is probably that RealPlume-Stock is overriding the effects, and I'm not sure how to fix that. If the model does not have that transform, then changing it to the same transform that the other effect (and the rest of the config file) refers to should fix it. I made a MM patch that sets the IonPlume to use the Smoke transform like the rest of the config does, and I'll report back if it works or not. EDIT (right after posting): The MM patch I made just removes the entire EFFECTS section, and replaces it with one that's identical except for the one change I made to it, it doesn't try to modify the EFFECTS block with any kind of fancy MM syntax. I'm pretty sure that should work, it's the simplest way I could think of to get MM to do what I want it to do. I also had another thought, it could be possible that this is happening because the config is not using ModuleEnginesFX like every stock engine that I can think of uses (and every engine that gets modified by RealPlume-Stock as well). Either way, I'll report back with my findings. EDIT 2 (after testing): It doesn't seem like anything changed, maybe I can get an image of what it's supposed to look like for comparison? I'll re-name my MM patch so it doesn't get used when I start the game up again.
  11. I can confirm that most of this addon is working in 1.5.1, the exception is the radial tanks. Whenever I click on one of those in the VAB/SPH my game CTD even before I let up on the mouse button. Probably something to do with the texture switching if I had to guess, and I'd be willing to bet that fixing it will only take some tweaking of the config files to point to the right textures or something like that. Texture switching isn't something I've tried messing with in configs yet, I'd have to study how it works for a while before trying to fix these parts. If nobody else does, I'll probably come up with a MM patch to fix it or something, and once I get that working I'll post it in this thread or the thread of whoever takes over maintaining this mod untill Necrobones gets back.
  12. @JAFO I already have KSP on a Samsung 840 PRO 128GB SSD, loading times are still in the 5 minute range. There are a 4 MM patch warnings that come up every time I start up KSP, so it has to throw out the MM cache every time it loads, but that's not the part that takes the longest (even tho it's 15367 patches applied).
  13. I see the Mach effect drive, unfortunately it produces too little thrust for me to be able to use it for docking a ship that weighs several thousand tons without consuming much power and not taking forever to dock. Mach effect drives are probably best suited to attitude control on ships using beamed power due to the low thrust-to-mass ratio and high power input requirements IMO. I do like that you only need 2 Mach effect drives to provide full translation control for a spacecraft, but the thrust is just too low and the power requirements are just too high to make it practical, and I'm already carrying propellant for other reasons (usually hydrazine because of it's density, acceptable ISP, and 2nd to best thrust (Liquid Methane is better, but is less dense). That's why I want the Arcjet RCS to work right, you can scale it to fit your needs with as few thrusters as possible. That Omni RCS part would actually be ideal for what I have in mind. I still have the bug with always getting the unpowered ISP of the RCS thrusters and them not ever drawing any power, any news on that? EDIT: Actually I have news on the RCS problem I was having. Apparently the proper RCS ISP only shows up when you're actually applying thrust with the RCS, for some reason. Displayed ISP seems to match actual performance too. However the ISP display behaviour is quite odd, perhaps there's a way to fix that?
  14. I thought you might be able to get in touch with the person who did the models for the linear arcjet RCS, arcjet RCS 45, and arcjet RCS 90, that way you could keep a consistent graphical style. Alternatively, you could temporarily re-use the models of the 5-way Resistojet RCS and 4-way Resistojet RCS 45 while waiting for new models and textures. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone who does 3d modeling and texturing that doesn't have their hands full with making parts for their own mod.
  15. Always a KSPI reactor, but in this case a Tri-Alpha Colliding Beam fusion reactor running in the proton Lithium 7 fuel mode. There should be more than enough power available for the RCS thrusters on this specific vessel (111 MW) and I have enough radiators to handle the waste heat. On this vessel, the reactor is there mostly to provide about 3.2 MW to the DC power grid in order to have a lightweight power solution to power the main engines, which use a large amount of EC as well as LFO propellant. The reactor does this without any issues. The problem is not that the vessel runs out of Megajoules first and then the RCS turns to unpowered mode, it happens as soon as I turn on the RCS with no control inputs. Doesn't seem to matter how much power is available, or which KSPI reactor I use. Even the positron antimatter reactor at 7.5m with an MHD generator attached is not powering the RCS thrusters. I have a feeling that this is a problem in the RCS part module itself, as it is common to every craft I build using KSPI powered RCS thrusters, but I know for sure it affects all the Arcjet RCS parts. EDIT: It doesn't change the problem I'm having, but while the reactor on that craft in the image Iinked in my previous post is outputting a maximum of 111MW, the tech nodes I have unlocked for charged particle generator efficiency (all except Extreme Electrical Systems) mean the reactor has a max theoretical electric power output of 100 MW according to the part action window in the VAB. EDIT 2: On the subject of RCS parts, I would like to see arcjet RCS with several more configurations in order to save parts. Right now to get full 3 axis translation control using only Arcjet RCS blocks (not the arcjet RCS service tank or either of the Inline Arcjet RCS parts, I have to use either 4 Cross Arcjet RCS, or a combination of 8 Mounted Dual Arcjet RCS 45 and 4 Mounted Arcjet RCS 90 parts, the latter combination being 12 parts in total. It would be nice if there was a 5-Way Arcjet RCS, and a Arcjet RCS that has 3 ports in 3 axes. That would give more options for using less parts dedicated to a full-featured RCS, without having to resort to the Resistojet RCS with it's inferior performance.
  16. Does anyone else have problems with the Arcjet RCS not working correctly? Yes, it outputs thrust in the right direction and the right amount, but the ISP is wrong for being powered. It always operates at the un-powered ISP even when the "power" button in the PAW is on. As a matter of fact, I can make the "ispowered = ?" line say "no" and the Power button in the PAW contradict each other. While MechJeb doesn't always deal with things in KSPI correctly (mostly electric engines), It does provide a useful stat for RCS Delta-V. I can toggle the power on and off with RCS disabled, and MechJeb will calculate the Delta-V as if the RCS is operating at the high ISP it should get when powered. I check in the PAW, and the listed RCS ISP is correct for the propellant I have selected (tested with Hydrazine, Monopropellant, and Liquid Hydrogen). However, as soon as I engage RCS by hitting R, the RCS ISP in the PAW and the RCS Delta-V displayed by MechJeb both drop to their un-powered levels. This means that I have to expend much more propellant for docking and fine course corrections than I otherwise would, and sometimes that means I swap out for standard monopropellant RCS thrusters which somehow have better ISP than the unpowered mode of the Arcjet RCS, simply to get the usual 150 or so m/s I usually budget for docking (this allows for multiple docking events without refueling). Here's a screenshot I grabbed of PAW contradicting itself:
  17. Would it help if I could compile a list of Stock (including MH) parts that belong in some category in Filter Extensions but are nowhere to be found in the Filter Extensions categories? I already have a few, unless I'm just looking in the wrong place. Cubic family Short, Medium, and Long struts (belong in Girders) Cubic family strut adapter (either Girders or Adapters, maybe both) EDIT: Structural Fuselage, not sure where to put it however That's all I have so far, but I'm sure there are others. As far as mods, none of the fuel tanks from Fuel Tanks Plus show up in the fuel tanks category except the Radial ones (speaking of those, they reliably crash my game when I click on them in the VAB, but that's an issue for another thread). EDIT: It would be really nice if there was a new category in Structural for things like the Structural Fuselage that don't belong in any other category, like the Structural Fuselage and (well I'm sure there are others but I can't think of them at this time)
  18. Yes, my comments were about the old Poodle model, not the new one. Seeing the new model, I don't have any objections to it keeping it's original stats, with the exception of adding a config node in the middle of it's atmosphere curve so that it's still useless to land on Kerbin, Laythe, or Eve, but is very useful as an engine to use for landing in moderate atmospheres like found at Duna. Back to the Wolfhound, now that I know what's happening to the Poodle, I think the Wolfhound should have higher ISP than the Poodle to reflect it's longer engine bell, but not as high as it is in stock (~367?). Thrust should be reduced to 125kN and mass reduced to 0.83T (keeps the same TWR as Poodle, but with reduced thrust because it's supposed to be a service module engine, not something you'd use to push large stacks around). The engine to move heavy 2.5m and lightweight 3.75m stacks around in space would be the RE-I2 Skiff, which IIRC from comments in this thread should be getting it's thrust and ISP boosted to more properly fill the role that it's IRL counterpart fills when recreating the Saturn-V in stock. I agree with this, but I have some specific stats in mind. Because it's a LH2+LOX engine, I think a vacuum ISP of 375 makes sense, and because it's supposed to be a sustainer and upper stage engine, a sea-level ISP of 175 seems to make sense to me (pretty bad for a sea-level engine, but really good for a vacuum engine operating out of it's element). Due to the high empty weight of LFO tanks in general, I think a thrust of 500kN is warranted. Mastodon? More thrust than Mainsail, specifically 2250kN. Make it useless in Eve's atmosphere if it isn't already, otherwise leave the ISP as it is (brute force inefficient lifting engine). Other than the one's I've commented about, I think the changes being made via these patches are fine.
  19. @JAFO I've heard of the UbioZur's Part Welder mod, but my problem with it is that I run a lot of mods so my KSP takes a while to start up, and IIRC you can't see the welded parts until you restart KSP. As far as the Wolfhound, if you don't want to do a straight "replace Wolfhound stats with Poodle stats", I think your idea to nerf the ISP and give it better thrust would work if we're not making drastic changes, but if you want a 2.5m Rhino, I think the Skiff is a much more fitting choice (once the changes are made that give it the thrust and ISP to do so, that is). To me, the Wolfhound should stick to being a service module engine for 2.5m capsules, meaning high ISP but low-ish thrust. Perhaps even lower thrust than the current poodle, now that I think of it. 100kN would be enough to do the job, so long as the weight was reduced to match (1t so it is a direct replacement for 2 Terriers but with 5s better vac. ISP). As for the poodle itself, unfortunately it has to be changed. The engine bell is simply too short for the ISP to be so high. Not even Full-flow Staged Combustion can save an engine with such poor ASL ISP from the problems that a short engine bell brings. It simply doesn't make sense, that's all there is to it. It would take a new model with multiple small nozzles each having a good expansion ratio all fed from a common turbopump to make it look right (common turbopump like how the RD-170 works, but with 7 vacuum nozzles instead of 4 sea-level nozzles). That would keep the low profile the Poodle has, while visually explaining the high vacuum and low sea-level ISP. My changes would reduce the mass and nerf the Vac ISP, but increase the thrust and ASL ISP, making it an overall good lander engine for 2.5m stacks. Right now it's an okay vacuum lander engine, but useless in atmosphere. I don't think it should be a good upper stage engine, that's where you'd use clusters of Terriers or a Skiff. I also don't think it should be a good first stage engine, so it should have less thrust than the Skipper (which also needs a thrust buff, but that's another topic). If you need an engine that has good vac ISP but also low profile like the Poodle for something like a heavy lander that uses a center 2.5m tank along with side stacks, you would have to start thinking differently about how you design it. Perhaps compromise on the need to have a low-profile engine, that opens up a lot more options. All you need to do is add some girders to the bottom of the lander to put the landing legs low enough that they touch down (and the suspension bottoms out) before the engine bell touches. Upgrading existing launchers would be simple enough as well. Just swap the Poodles for Skiffs. Much better thrust, similar or better ISP (after the patches being discussed of course). Really the only situation in which you would need to redesign the whole rocket is one in which you've calculated everything out to the last m/s of delta-V, and I don't know about you, but I don't have time to do that on every rocket. I usually have a fair bit of excess fuel around and sure, using a higher mass engine like the Skiff would cut into that margin, but it shouldn't cause big problems.
  20. RE the Poodle/Wolfhound issue The Wolfhound inheriting the Poodle's stats is a good idea, as the Wolfhound's ISP and thrust are too high for it's low weight, making it the clear choice for 2.5m (and larger) orbital stages, and landers if you can work around the height. Making it exactly the same as the Poodle (thrust, mass, ISP curve) makes it match what it should be to match the IRL AJ-10 SPS engine (bipropellant hypergolic vacuum engine), while not being OP compared to the other vacuum-optimized engines. That leaves what to do about the Poodle. I'd either leave Mass and Thrust where they are or slightly buff them (1.5t, 275-300kN), and cut the ASL/Vac ISP to put it in line with something like the Reliant. That would put it squarely in the "low profile landing engine" niche for planets with and without an atmosphere, in a 2.5m diameter. Having a low-profile engine that can let you land on planets with atmosphere is usually something you can only do after you unlock the Dart aerospike engine, and even then you need more than one of those to land a 2.5m craft, which increases part count and weighs more than a single Poodle does. I'm all for allowing things to be done with less parts, as anyone who has tried to do something large-scale in KSP knows, more parts = more lag. My game becomes a slideshow around 300 parts, I notice the low framerate around 200 parts, and the MET clock turns yellow around 150 parts. I take every opportunity to get rid of a few parts that I can find, but it's still not enough.
  21. Thanks for the info, I thought OPM could only be put around the stock system, but if it will put just the OPM planets around another star that's just fine by me.
  22. Not sure if this has been covered before, but what do I do/install/change to make the GPP system the primary system, with the Kerbol+OPM system orbiting it? Do I need to install GPP_OPM? I think that's what I have to do (same idea as installing GPP_Secondary except it does it for the Kerbol/OPM system), but I want to make sure before I mess up an existing Science mode save (of course I'll make a backup, but I want to avoid needing a backup if I can). I know from looking at the GPP configs that Kerbol will be renamed to Robau's star or something like that (can't remember exactly), and that's what gave me the idea to install OPM on-top of my GPP/GEP systems. Just trying to make sure that by installing GPP_OPM I'm not making the Ciro system orbit Kerbol. EDIT 1: I'm going to be running all of this on KSP v1.5.1 in d3d11 mode. I fully realize that GPP and GEP are not yet updated for KSP 1.5.1, but I have not had any problems with using GPP and GEP so far because I installed the 1.5.1 version of all the required dependencies. (I know I'll get no support if I post bug reports because of using not-updated mods, but I'll either figure out a workaround {in which case I'll post the workaround}, or I'll just live without it). EDIT 2: Now that I'm actually trying to find GPP_OPM, it seems Google can't find it (Usually I use google to search the forums because the forum search function doesn't do what I want it to 90% of the time, or at least that's how it used to behave a while ago). Any help on that front? EDIT 3: Looked in the OPM zip's Optional Mods folder to see if it was there, because that's where GPP_Secondary is in the GPP zip, but no luck. Any help would be much appreciated!
  23. Works in 1.5.1, and if you use the MM patch LinuxGuruGamer posted a few posts back, the large Vernier thruster will have the correct effects on it (the RCS plume won't point backwards anymore).
  24. ... And now I'm rather embarrassed, as that seems to be exactly what has happened. I'm just getting this bunch of mods running, guess I was bound to forget something eventually.
  25. OK, but the log file is like 7MB. Github gist is an alternative to PasteBin that is free and doesn't seem to have a file-size limit, unlike PasteBin which has a free limit of 512kb per file.