Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About TheWire

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I’m having some problems with ModuleManger’s dependency checking i.e. PART:NEEDS[MyMod]. It seems to be detecting RemoteTech when it’s not there. This problem seems to affect various different mods. ModuleManger detects mods based on mod.dll and mod folder which makes sense. However, it also detects installed mods using FOR[mod]: and I don’t get why this is. Having a config file with FOR[RemoteTech] doesn’t seem to be a reasonable way of detecting the presence of a mod. You can have :FOR[mod]: without that particular mod being installed. I have confirmed this is the problem I the log
  2. Is it just me or has the last update/s to real fuels broken loads of mods. Whenever I launch a new vessel the tanks include both the real fuels and regular ksp liquid fuel / oxidizer even though I have purposefully removed them. Also the dry mass of tanks seems wrong its using regular ksp mass values rather than rss/ro. This seems to affect at least FASA, the laztek SpaceX mod and a mod I'm currently working on.
  3. Thanks that worked. I'm not sure why I had hotrockets installed instead of real plumes though, did this dependency change?
  4. When I try updating Realism Overhaul its says: The following inconsistencies were found: HotRockets conflicts with RealPlume v0.0, can't install both. but I don't have RealPlume v0.0 installed only hotrockets. Also when I try updating far its says: Could not find a part of the path 'D:\Kerbal Space Program (realism overhall)\Ships\@thumbs\SPH\FAR Blitzableiter.png'. even though this path appears to work fine.
  5. I'm having the same problem drill is overheating before even being used on minmus.
  6. I don't think its a coincidence that the kerbals are clearly named after Apollo 10 backup crew and that altitude over the Mun is Apollo 10 closest at 15.6 km. This clearly maps to a specific date May 22nd. May be they used the backup crew to make it less obvious it was Apollo 10. Not sure about the countdown, yesterday 11 boosters today 10 for Apollo 10? Is that clear enough for a countdown. May be the boosters are a clock face which would make it 8. May be the countdown is for the competition not the release date.
  7. The picture is of Apollo 10 for some reason with backup crew at their closest approach to the Moon which was at May 22 21:29:43 UTC . So I guess that's the release date, its a Friday so it makes sense.
  • Create New...