• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

93 Excellent

About etmoonshade

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'm probably an hour or so from firing up KSP again - I'll put on BE10 and see what's up since I'm around Slate right now.
  2. To be fair, it probably shouldn't be called that in the first place. is the proper term for it. The Wikipedia article explains why it's called a ghetto blaster, and it should be pretty obvious why that's not necessarily a good thing. (I used to have a boombox, and it was great and loud and awesome) @IgorZ - consider this a feature request I guess.
  3. By the simple act of modding, I'm changing how I experience the planet packs anyway. If I were bothered about experiencing things exactly as the author intended, I'd be playing stock and a single mod. And I'd be bored out of my skull. And the other bit is HeatShifter. Which has zero documentation that I can find, other than a comment in that says it's now bundled. I'm not even sure what it does, but I play with reentry heat turned off so I suspect it does nothing useful for me in the first place. If enjoying my game my way is cheating, well - call me a proud cheater, zero shame.
  4. I guess I should explicitly list what I went and got: Outer Planets Mod Grannus Expansion Pack (has a couple of extra bits it installs, which can be removed) Galileo's Planet Pack (CKAN install does NOT fit the OP's restrictions, but it can be stripped down, also added GPP-Secondary) Galaxies Unlimited: Nova Kirbani (installs some parts, which I can happily ignore if necessary) Extrasolar Planet Pack I'm keeping the Low Light Levels/Blinding Light Levels packs in the back pocket (so to speak) both because I've got plenty of places to explore already, and because it was mentioned earlier that they had problems with 1.10.1. I'll probably revisit them later. ExtraSolar seems to be the only one out of the bunch (that I installed, at least) that truly fits the restrictions I set out in the OP - nothing extra in the base install, just a star and planets. It's not that I can't remove extra components, it's just that currently, it isn't easily maintainable with CKAN - any time I update my installed mods, all the stuff is likely to get reinstalled when I do so. Manual installation is slightly better, but that's only because I'm having to touch everything anyway.
  5. Why? I mean, I installed this from CKAN and it works perfectly fine. The expected contents of GameData from a manual install match what CKAN installs for me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  6. Modularity is the best. For what it's worth, I've been using Snacks! since the early days and what attracted me to it was its simplicity. I installed it, I suddenly had one resource to plan around for long missions, and I (originally) didn't have a lot of configuration to muck around with. I probably would have skipped over it if there had been a bunch of other options mentioned. Snacks seems to fill that "life support lite" niche - adding too many options would have made me worry that, like some of the other more complex mods, it'd change a bunch of stuff (some of which may be being used by other mods I have.) Obviously Snacks! doesn't do that, but it's the type of thing I worry about when I'm deciding whether I want to get a mod - it takes me a while to start KSP, so my first step is to skim the description in CKAN, look at the files it edits, and skim the forum post. At that point, I'll "judge the book by its cover" I'm not saying "don't do it' and I'm not saying "screw you i'm never using snacks again if you do it" - I'm just pointing out my thought processes when looking at mods like this. A set of different mods such as "Here's the Snacks! mod, with all your basic snacking needs!" "Here's the Drinks! mod, which depends on Snacks! and adds water consumption and drunken engineers!" and "Here's the Bananas! mod, which depends on Snacks! and adds radiation mechanics!" would make it more clearly modular, and let people add/remove the components easily in CKAN. And the stress part could be called "Crackin'! mod, which makes Kerbals stir-crazy!" And gives you a Kraken joke. The big downside to it is that it'd probably be a lot harder to maintain it like this. Again, just thinking it through while I wait to feed the cat. Who says "jukii3e4r5" because she walks on the keyboard when she's trying to annoy me into feeding her early*. * kitty has been fed now that the feeding alarm has gone off. She is now fat, happy, and utterly ignoring me because I am no longer useful to her.
  7. I admit, reading this changelog made me think "what the heck are you doing changing the density of something in the CRP?" And then I looked at what actually changed, and lol'd. Clever and hilarious, though I'm glad it's optional. Eventually each of my kerbals end up eating the same 3 snacks over and over again once I get to the point of making interplanetary ships. I'm not in this for super heavy realism.
  8. @TranceaddicT - I've finally managed to get home and sit down to give the wiki section a good reading. I've submitted an edit for the Copy operation that I think would have been useful to me in yesterday's mental state - fleshing out the example a bit and tweaking the wording to make it entirely clear that "HEY THIS IS THE EASY WAY TO MAKE A NEW PART FROM AN OLD ONE." Very definitely NOT adhering to KISS.
  9. It's funny you should mention that - I actually commented on that thread, stating that it wouldn't run at all for me on 1.10.1. I know Booots is apparently in the process of doing an update though... Edit: heh, in fact, right before the comment you quoted.
  10. Clarity and being explicit about "obvious" things is always valuable. At a quick scan, looks good - thanks! I literally just had a situation at work where an "obvious" step was missed in some instructions, and it would have caused a problem if I hadn't been careful and done backups first. (now I'm just waiting for stuff to build...)
  11. My general statement stands - this should be explicitly mentioned in the Wiki, for when other people have "old" moments. I'll see if I can do something tonight, assuming I can even edit the wiki - apparently I haven't logged into github on this machine before, so it wants me to 2FA with my e-mail account... which I can't get to right now since I'm actually AT work today. I imagine someone more familiar with MM would be able to word it better than I would anyway. Hint hint @TranceaddicT (I will totally hack something together if I have the access - just later tonight)
  12. Huh, I never actually thought of that. For what it's worth, the point behind posting that was to avoid having to restart KSP to test it out. It takes excessively long for me to restart. :V Of course a few minutes after I posted that, KSP crashed so I just went ahead and tried it anyway. It does appear to copy everything, although I know that because I actually have a working part rather than because I specifically checked the MM cache. I was actually putting together an edit to my previous post, but I got distracted by a shiny* and must've clicked away from that page by accident. * new wifi router - I now have gigabit everywhere in my network again! Edit: also, apparently I knew this 3 years ago when I made my custom parachute config - I successfully used the copy function there. Derp.
  13. So wait, was it actually hanging on load? I thought you were just complaining about the error. :V
  14. So I'm realizing that I need massive physics-breaking numbers of engines for a particular craft I'm working on - I want to make a couple of upscaled engines instead (not using TweakScale for Reasons(tm) in this case - that'd obviously be a WAY easier way of dealing with this otherwise.) Would the following work as I expect it to? +PART[RandomOriginalEngineFromAnotherMod] { @name = RandomOriginalEngineFromAnotherModButBigger @MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX] { @maxThrust *= 2 } } +PART[RandomOriginalEngineFromAnotherMod] { @name = RandomOriginalEngineFromAnotherModButBiggerest @MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX] { @maxThrust *= 8 } } (what I'd expect is two parts with different names, and 2x or 8x engine thrust) I'm obviously oversimplifying here - I'm mostly wondering if the + operator actually copies everything from whatever part is put in brackets, and it's not quite clear from the example provided on GitHub. I'm confident that I can work out the rest of the issues.
  15. AFAIK, EL hasn't been formally updated for 1.10.x yet: (FWIW, I get the same error, and I know that Hangar had a very similar error caused by 1.10 that needed to be fixed)