Murdabenne

@bsooner77 (Sic 'em Bears! Heh) Try this message - it gives a good detailed way to make the best possible request for help that will get your bug/question addressed properly, and quicker than any other:

@UomoCapra, I was checking the additional DLC purchases in preparation for a clean 1.11.2 install, and these appear to be the listings: Breaking Ground 1.6.1 "Use this installer if you have a non translated copy of KSP 1.11.2" -> KSP-Breaking_Ground_Expansion-en-us-1.6.1.exe Making History Expansion 1.11.1 "Use this installer if you have a non translated copy of KSP 1.11.2" -> KSP-Making_History_Expansion-en-us-1.11.1.exe These appear to be the same as the previous ones. Is it safe to say I can reuse those or do I need to download what appear to be identical files for a fresh (upd

I ran into this just now, except that I rechecked what I launched, and NEITHER of the ports were root at launch. So is there any alternative way other than relaunching the entire thing? I made sure I had rerooted the entire ship to the control point (command pod) when I saved just prior to queuing it for launch. ADD: I reloaded to prior to my launch, DELETED the part off the station, re-added them. It still fails after I get into orbit. And now I cannot dock with the one construction port at the aft end. My tug, using a normal port, can dock just fine with another tug, and with a late

Ugh. Zombie. Why not try and load it yourself and post the results?

OK so what you're saying is the part window menu will have an added "allow weld ON/OFF" toggle per part, but it will still be triggered vessel wide? Or will it be an individual pair basis for welds? Now I think I understand the intent and how it will work. And that is the answer to the parts issue - its simply a module, so that solves the "missing part" problem when someone uninstalls USI (although why would they? LOL ). And if it can be triggered in adjacent pairs ("weld ports" button on t he popup like the staging/activate buttons), then you have all the individual control as a bonus, so

This is exactly what I was going to ask after getting the answers above - if there was an action group assignment. I'll also add the activate/deactivate for the proper facing thrusters, deactivate the ones going the wrong way, activate the correct RCS, and flip the correct spotlight on and the other off. I assume that having the probe control reoriented by doing this also changes the torque direction for the flywheels in the probe control or capsule as well? And thanks for the heads up about the "forward" direction, I think I'll add a grabber on an arm that goes to the front just below

Basically, I have a 2 ended tug with a Lander Can in the middle, tanks, 2 sets of reaction controls (4 LFO in each for and aft) from one of Nertea's packs, 2 sets of engines (4x Twitch each for and aft), and a docking port at each end (portJr at one end, regular at the other) or alternatively I can stick a grabber on a docking port and put it on either end. In the VAB is easy to see as the "forward" direction (its "up"), and typically I have the full sized port at the "bottom" and the smaller at the "top" (no real reason, just habit of having a lot of ships that use the smaller ports for re

Actually I don't see the harm in having them as a separate part, that way it operates the same way it does now (except as a MM copy of the stock port), its not broken so why "fix" it? Is there a reason behind this I am unaware of? I and some others would prefer it the current way to keep things appearing and functioning as they always have, and also to avoid the delay and inevitable complexities that will happen if you have to modify each and every docking port in the game, and also consider them when welding. A common failure would be hitting weld when a supply ship is docked to the curre

Oh? I thought you were making a MM addition to leverage all the original functionality, artwork and config of the stock part, and then add yours as a clone + functionality. That way the Construction Ports show up different from the stock ports, something like this: +PART[dockingPort3]:Final { @name = KonstructionPort0 @title = #autoLOC_XXXXXXXX //#autoLOC_XXXXXXXX = Clamp-O-Tron Construction Port Jr. (need translation stuff) @description = #autoLOC_XXXXXXXX //#autoLOC_XXXXXXXX = Variants of the popular Clamp-O-Tron Docking Ports that can be compressed for construction, and can

OK thanks, I though it might have something to do with the revamp and deprecation. This is not a "hurry up" request, I am just curious how the revamp is going (I hope it goes well), and if you have any horizon in mind for a release. A suggestion - make the new part ConstructionPort_0 vs ConstructionPort0, or even "KonstructionPort0", that way you can leave the old parts in game for a while. I'll watch here for new posts regarding test candidates. I intend to test these parts once you have a beta or RC. It seems like fairly trivial testing scenarios - either they dock+undock+"weld" (a

@RoverDude just a quick question (is that ever true? LOL) is there a specific reason that the Construction Port[0,1,2] configs have category = instead of category = Coupling If its a bug, I can put it on your bug list if you say to do so, but I am hesitant to clutter things up with a relatively minor issue that I can fix by editing the file myself. Or is it "working as designed"? I know you and @DoktorKrogg coming up with a revamp of the ConstructionPorts that will do away with the part files, which will make these simply MM configs (reuse the Squad base part &

I checked the save file, and the ship has the module in it. I started by checking the logs, and of course there were no real errors about MJ - mainly warnings about parts and resources that do not exist (for mods I do not have them installed apparently). About the only thing I found in the logs were repeated errors from DeepFreezeContinued and from Background Resources (the latter is an option support add for the former), so I removed them. Still got the missing MJ problem. I may add DeepFreeze back once I go past Duna because I use USI including USI-LS, and if I want to send Kerbals to

Mechjeb has completely disappeared in my career save. Its not on the screen, its button is gone, not there in flight. However if I load a new (empty) build its not there but when I grab a command pod, it pops up. Same thing if I go to my Station, which has a MechJeb module. But on my currently flying ship, it doesnt show up, although I previously used MJ's Ascent Guidance to launch it up there. I do note that I dont have the option to enable or disable MJ on the Mk1-3, its as if it got ripped out or was never there. I checked the .sfs file and there is a MechJebCore on the command modle.

@DoktorKrogg Herr Doktor, that makes imminent sense. So as long as they have already been "welded" this should make no difference to any craft unless they are carrying an "unwelded" port, yes? Out of all of the "I didn't think of that" parts in all of the USI, those construction ports are my functional favorites. I love having them so I can build viable non-slinky weird-angle un-flyable off-centre large vehicles that would never survive a launch in joined fashion - the kind that never see an atmosphere any closer than low orbit. Better yet, when I get a new tech, shoot it into orbit and

And there's the most remarkable thing! All those mods and all the requests every time there's an update "when are you going to updat X? I want it now"... And you don't drink yet?!?! LOL! Thanks for what you do - I would not bother playing this game were it not for many of your mods (And Roverdude, Nertea, R-T-B, Poodmund, Sarbian, and several others) I'm sure others feel same the same way. edit: For you millennials and zoomers, thats a reference to Animal House, a movie which GenXers (and boomers) recommend you watch