Acid_Burn9

I know, that modders will implement it anyways, but i'd rather have it made by professionals with Private Division resources, than by amateur modder on bold enthusiasm, because of the amount of attention to details required. Replicating landscape of Earth alone is a monumental task, and i'm not even talking about putting every Moon crater, to exact place it should be in. And honestly i'm even willing to pay for it as a DLC, if it would be made well, taking into account HOW MUCH of effort will that take, compared to creating a new fictional system from scratch, without having to worry about being inaccurate. And couple of thoughts on how it might be done. So we know, that the Kerbol system from original KSP, will be a starting point in the KSP 2. We also know, that there is interstellar travel in KSP 2. Why wouldn't one of the systems, that we discover during our journey, be our beloved RSS? Just as it is in real world with one exception. There is no humans. Earth is perfectly habitable, but is completely untouched by life yet. Just imagine THE POTENTIAL of this approach! I'm not even gonna talk about recreating historic missions, flying hypersolic planes or visiting familiar locations, cause it's just so obvious. Think beyond that. Think about sending a ship called "The Ark" under command of Noah Kerman, to find and colonize habitable planet. Think about crash landing there and loosing both all contact to Kerbalkind and all their technology. Think about Kerbals calling this planet Earth, adjusting to it and evolving over time. Think about Kerbals starting their civilization from scratch there. Think about Kerbals forgetting who they are and where they are from. Think about how Kerbals can actually be great ancestors of Humans! How cool that would be! And now think about this being very much possible event scenario in KSP2, if only we get our solar system replica in KSP 2. THE POTENTIAL!

It has been confirmed, that Kerbol system will stay as it is in the original game. Although, if you are looking for larger scale systems, don't get upset right away - devs have been asked this question already and they answered with "well we have interstellar travel who knows what you'll find there" tease, so larger systems most likely are in the game, you'll just have to find them. And if modders found their way to make RSS in the original KSP, they will certainly be capable of doing so in KSP 2, that was designed to be much more accessible for modding in the first place, so there is that.

nah man. KSP is perfect.

I hope we'll see something like in Elite Dangerous.

Or big battery reserves. And don't forget about power management like turning reaction wheels off to conserve energy. And again placing 1 RTG to specifically have at least some power source in darkness is different from spamming them, to have unlimited energy regardless of conditions.

True. Reputation is straight up useless. And i'd rather prefer to fund my researches with money, rather than farm science points to unlock them. More like horrible mechanic tbh. That is kinda what i was thinking about when i described "banning" thingy. For sure weight and size limitations make MUCH more sense, than part count and are nowhere near as annoying. Also they still do very little to encourage player to think efficiently. Cost(not the part unlock cost, but exactly the part launch cost) is still essential for that. I just can't accept the fact, that the player can put 20 RTG's(it is the most explicit example i can think of) on his craft pretty much for free, once he unlocks it. Like, it is piece of incredibly advanced and expensive equipment, you can't just spam it on your every craft. This is just not how it supposed to work.

They are intriguing for sure, but that doesn't really mean it cannot be combined with career mode and made even better. I don't think, that strict limitations on size and weight will solve anything. , First of all it introduces a series of problems like "Oh i'm out of build borders for 1mm. I guess i'm not launching this thing." Most of the times problems like this can be solved with tweaking by clipping parts into each other, but it's not always the case. Sometimes you need you craft to be exact size for your own reasons. Yes there will be orbital shipyards in the game, but they will be available in somewhere in mid-game or even late-game. Then again player will not be encouraged to build more efficiently as long as it fits limitations. So what is the point of them? To ban player from launching big and inefficient rockets? It should be players decision and if he doesn't want to do so - fine. Let him pay excrements-ton of money for his inefficient monstrosity. Don't just ban him from doing what he wants. After all he is the one playing the game and it is up to him how to do so. I don't think that it is a solution to ban player form anything. Player himself should come to understanding of why it is better for him to build his monstrosity on the orbital shipyard, instead of launching it form Kerbin. And that can can done exactly with money. "Oh damn it will cost me 2 billions of billions to build a rocket, capable of putting thing thing into orbit. I can save a lot of money if i'd just build it there in the first place." Cost is the key to efficiency. Not size, not weight, not anything else in the world. Everything always comes down to cost. Why is it better to build a huge ship in the orbit? Because it will COST to much to put it in orbit in one go with massive and expensive rocket. Why is it better to build a craft that can do exactly what it needs to do and nothing else, instead of putting useless on your ship? Cost. You don't want to throw your money away on the stuff you don't even need. Why would you want to reuse your rocket? Cost. I cannot say this enough. Cost is an ultimate measure of efficiency. Maybe not exactly in money. That is not the point. I talked about how money can be replaced with resources, necessary for parts. It doesn't matter that much in what form COST will be implemented, as long as it will be implemented. Money is just the most straight forward way to do so.

Intresting, but i think i would still prefer doing the mission once and get paid x10, other than doing it once, getting paid x1 and then wait for it to automatically complete 9 more times. In the end you will get the same amount of money for same amount of effort, but it seems to me, that big paycheck right away would be much more straight forward.

Well again my main point wasn't really about contracts, but more about presence of a currency of some sort and the parts being balanced by their cost in said currency. But yes. Let's hope the devs will answer this.

It is not like i am trying to raise a rebellion against devs And for "right now"... I think the sooner i share my concerns about the game - the better chances, that these concerns will be accounted for. Imagine if i would've posted this after the game is already released and there is no career mode. Even if devs agreed with my points and thought it would be indeed a good idea to add Career Mode to the game, it would just be too late for that, because the whole game was already build without an idea of Career Mode around. So yes. Right now. Very nice idea! Of course it adds a concern of "infinite funds for no effort", so you have to be careful with that, but it can be balanced, and i like the concept of it, especially knowing that devs talked about automated supply lines in the same article, which is literally the thing you suggested, but for resources rather than money.

I hope that concept of Career Mode won't be abandoned, just because original game never had enough good ways to get money. I made a separate topic, where i've discussed it more deeply.

So today i stumbled upon recent PC Gamer article about KSP 2. I recommend to watch the videos, reviewing this article, before reading this post(or you can check out transcript somewhere on this forum). Videos can be found on ShadowZone and Matt Lowne YT channels. https://www.pcgamer.com/space-odyssey-our-first-big-look-at-kerbal-space-program-2/ I'm not gonna talk about the whole article, but rather about the part, that states, that KSP 2 will have what is called "Adventure Mode". From my understanding of this article, there is planned to be no funds/contract system in the game, because dev team considers, that it was too grindy in the original game. I disagree with this position. In fact the Career Mode is my favorite game mode for a very long time now. The only time i'm not playing it, is when i feel an urge to tinker and have fun with airplanes in sandbox, which is one of my hobbies (BTW this is why i really expect KSP 2 to improve in this area as well, but that's the story for another time), but when it comes to playing a campaign of my own Space Program - Career Mode is my only choice. I've never been an active user on this forum, or on any forum tbh, but the threat of not having this, EXTREMELY important feature, in the sequel, made me sit and write this post anyway. I really hope, that sharing my thoughts here, will make players give it a seconds chance and KSP 2 devs reconsider their position about adding it to the game, because it really deserves it. And here is why. Firstly let's talk about why the Career Mode was called "too grindy" in the first place. The contract system in the original game pretty much consist of the list of the simple objectives and rewards with some RNG integrated, and feels like it was done in a hurry by someone, who had little idea about how to realize the feature in the first place and took completely wrong approach. As a result of that most of the contracts were about pressing certain button at certain speed/altitude for a minor payout. I'm not arguing, with the fact, that it was indeed very boring. It was. But it is important to note, that is an issue NOT with career mode itself, but rather with the way contracts were implemented, so it shouldn't be used as a reason to not include the career mode into the sequel. The thing that is also worth noting, is that a lot of people, who've tried career mode, abandoned it almost instantly, without investigating the game mode further. Because of that they've had no chance of understanding good and important concepts, that this mode introduced to the game, so the community opinion about career mode being garbage was born. But i am not one of those people. I am one of the few, that gave the Career Mode a chance to prove itself. And spoiler alert - i wasn't disappointed. The importance of the "Funds" concept. KSP is a game about building rockets from parts and launching them into space. Some parts are better, some are worse, and some might come in handy in a specific situation, while being completely useless in the other. A good half of the fun in this game comes from designing a unique vessel, that serves specific purpose and taking some trade-offs in the process. In the game like this, it is VERY important to keep the parts balanced, otherwise your're gonna end up with a same design being an answer to every question, which is obviously not good and will for a fact make the game boring. There is of course a lot of ways to balance parts, such as mass and size for all parts, and some unique parameters for a certain part category, like range and throughput for antennas, lift and drag coefficients for wing parts and thrust and ISP for engines, when sometimes you sacrifice some thrust, in order to squeeze more dV out of your vessel, that is to reaching your destination destination, and other times you don't get a luxury of having good ISP, because you need a lot of thrust to push your massive 1000t craft out of the atmosphere. And in Career Mode there is also a cost. Why is it so important you might ask? Answer is going to be complicated. Let's talk about RTG's. RTG's are great! They have almost no mass, they take almost no space and they generate electricity absolutely for free, regardless of any conditions. The only downside of them is the fact, that they generate electricity at really low speed, which can be countered with just using more of them. You can see where i'm going with this. Why would i ever use solar panels and huge batteries(not even mentioning the fuel cells), when i have RTG's unlocked? If i'm playing Science or Sandbox i can just put 20 RTG's on my craft without any trade-offs and completely forget about the electricity as a game concept. Not good. But in career mode i have a clear reason to not do so - COST. For the same money, it costs to put 2 RTG's on my vessel i can launch a rocket to the Mun that will land there and return safely to Kerbin with crew onboard. A bit more ridiculous example: Why wouldn't you use a Daedalus engine to propel your 500kg probe into the LKO? Same answer. COST. And that is where the Career mode absolutely shines. Not only it introduces a necessary balancing factor into the game, that prevents player from thoughtlessly spamming parts, that are OP in other game modes, but on top of that it also FUNDAMENTALLY changes the way you approach designing your spaceship, by introducing unique trade-offs, that are present in no other game mode. For example: * You want to launch a communication satellite to the LKO. Which command probe will you chose? Sandbox/Science: "The best one obviously!" Career: "Well since it is a just communication sat, that is not indented to dock with anything, intercept something or land at specific location there is no point in having expensive SAS so i might just use the cheap one and save some money for future missions." * You want to launch a communication satellite to the LKO. Which engines will you chose for the rocket? Sandbox: "Vectors." Science: "Look at that new and shiny Mainsail i just unlocked!" Career: "It's only LKO i'm going to and my payload is not that big. I might easily get away with Swivel." * You want to launch science mission to the Mun's surface. Where will you put science equipment? Sandbox: "What's science?" Science: "Descend stage obviously. I can just take all the data from them and not take extra weight back with me." Career: "Damn these GRAVMAX and Double-C Seismic Accelerometer are so expensive! I think it's worth trying to recover them! Let's see...I can try snapping all the science on top of the crew module right near the parachute and hope, that it won't overhear on reentry... OR... I can put my science module in the service bay between the heat shield and crew module! But is it really worth paying extra for the service bay? Hmm..." The Career Mode adds new and, most importantly, interesting challenges(or puzzles how the Devs are calling them) of getting to space, in the game that is ALL ABOUT the challenge of getting to space. I don't know about you guys, but for me it is VERY exciting and makes me enjoy the game SO MUCH MORE. But wait! There is more! Have you ever heard about the guy called Elon Musk? He once said “Six million dollars is falling through the sky. Would we try to catch it?” Well would we? No. Because guess what! There is no such thing as "dollars" in the game! You might still do it for fun or challenge, but the whole concept of making reusable rockets or even SSTO's becomes pretty much pointless! In conclusion: Pros of Career Mode: * Balance for the expensive late-game parts * More challenges for the player * Encouragement for a player to reuse rockets Cons of Career Mode: * Was too grindy in the original game (which, as i explained earlier, is not even an issue with Career Mode itself) I think it is clear now, that Career Mode brings so much to the gameplay. It makes the game even more in-depth and realistic (you have to remember, that rocket science IRL is not just about getting to space, but rather getting to space with the cheapest and easiest way possible, which is often forgotten by KSP community), it introduces A LOT of new opportunities and challenges to the player, that NASA, SpaceX, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab and every other rocket company IRL faces and has to deal with. And i not just absolutely love that. For me it is ESSENTIAL in the game like KSP. And taking all this good stuff out of the game, just because original game had not enough good ways to farm the money? It's just unacceptable in my opinion. So we have an essential, for this game, mechanics - money and a fact of grinding said money was boring in the original game. What do we do in the sequel? I would answer - instead of removing money from the sequel entirely, it is better to rethink the way player earns this money. And i have some ideas on how to do so, that i'd like to share. * Not all contracts in the original game were boring. Most of them yes, but not all of them. Tourism for example. Riding couple VIPs to the Mun and back is nowhere near a bad gameplay. It had it's issues of its own, like the required destinations would be a complete mess (for example land on Minmus+complete suborbital flight on dune on the same flight, which complicates the mission by a lot) if you visited a lot of celestial bodies, but that could be manipulated by the player. My strategy about it was: if you land on the Mun to unlock Mun contracts, but then won't go to Minmus or any other place, so the game gives you contracts, associated with only Kerbin (suborbital+orbit) and Mun(fly by+orbit+suborbital+land), and all of these objectives could be completed within nice and simple Mun landing mission. If you want to learn more about this method of farming you can check out thingy in the Steam Workshop, that i've posted a while ago. TL;DR: rocket with 16 VIP seats could make profit over 2 millions per flight if you get lucky with contracts. Again for a relatively simple Mun landing mission that will take 30-60 minutes that is not "too grindy" at all. My suggestion here - leave VIP contracts in the game, but limit the objectives in the way, so there will be one single destination for the whole contract, that is shared by all the VIPs in it. And maybe some multiplier for flying a lot of VIPs at the same time (single VIP - 50k, x2 - 55k each, x3 - 60k each and etc.), to reward player for taking time and effort in designing big and capacious spaceships. * Another example of good contracts are Rescue contracts. You get free Kerbal in your Space Program(just a reminder that in Career Mode you have to purchase Kerbonauts for those who haven't played it) and you also get paid for it on top of that. Pretty good stuff. * Contracts for putting 3rd party satellites on the required orbit are welcome as well. Also in my opinion it would be better if the game had some pre-build sub-assemblies instead of telling player to build the satellite himself(ex. "Hey here is my satellite. Put it in LKO with 350km apogee, 400km perigee and 10deg inclination." Player accepts the contract and gets a sub-assembly of this satellite and only required to send it to the desired orbit) * Contracts for resupplying satellites/space stations. Player accepts the contract, pre-made craft spawns in orbit, and player has to dock with it and transfer certain amount of resource to complete the contract. * Pretty much advanced and combined previous 2. Client gives contract to get sub-assembly to orbit, some time after player completes it the same client gives another contract to send new sub-assembly to the old one and dock them together. Repeat until the whole space station will be finished. Some time time after that player will start to get resupply contracts from same client. All these contracts will NOT be "boring" just by their nature, but can become boring IF the pay is bad, so the player has to focus on them too much. On the other hand, if player would get paid well for completing them, they WILL be VERY much welcome in the game. I would happily complete as many of them as needed, to fund my Space Program, considering again, that the paycheck is reasonable. * Concept of funding researches with money would never hurt * Idea of KSP 2 is to explore new horizons and find a new home for Kerbal kind. But that's a long term goal. To achieve that goal player has to get through a number of simpler objectives. And that Way could be similar to something like this, if the Career Mode will make it to the sequel: All starts with a cheap prototype rocket launch, continues with couple of commercial satellites being put in orbit and some tourists being send suborbital, to fund the research and construction of new and better rockets. With new tech comes the Mun landing, that unlocks Mun tourism and funds more research. After that player starts thinking about building colonies, to expand his reach, so the great exploration begins. From Duna to Eve, to Jool and Laythe and anywhere within the Kerbol System, until the Great Interstellar Ship has been constructed, while ALL of that being funded by commercial flights i described above. Colonies start to become independent and will use on-the-spot resources to build rockets. So at this point the money will start to lose its value for exploration and after Kerbals arrive to new star system they will have no use for it there at all. All that of course while on Kerbin player can still continue to expand the commercial side of his Space Program. And one more important thing to note here, that the "Cost" concept should still be present for colonies, that mine resources, in order to build a rocket. This can be implemented through a lot of multiple ways, i'm sure everyone can think of one. Here is the first thing, that came to my mind first(don't take this one too seriously): * Add to the game basic resources like Copper and Iron, that will be good for most of the stuff and can be found almost everywhere and some rare ones, like Uranium or Titanium, that will be required for high-tech stuff. Each part in the game will it's cost in the resources. When player attempts to launch build a craft in the colony game calculates total cost of the craft in resources and checks, if the colony has enough of these resources in its storage. Simple. Should work perfectly. This process can also be complicated by adding more different resources/making some resources to not be mineable directly, but rather craftable from other resources (like plastic from oil, or microschemes from copper and iron, etc.)(Factorio vibes yes ). This "cost in resources" thingy can also be applied to Kerbin, so that instead of paying for the rocket directly, player will pay for the resources, necessary for the rocket. * The thing above can easily be a limiting factor for why player can't build a Daedalus engine on Kerbin. It would simply cost to much. So instead of buying it player will be forced to go and get resources, necessary to construct it. * And if that seems too complicated it is still a solution to make VAB's on colonies require funds for rockets, just like the VAB on Kerbin, in order to simplify things. (although i'm not a fan of this approach) * Also great addition to this would be an ability to disassemble landed vessels into resources, for the sake of reusability. I've been typing this for couple hours already, so i'm tired and starting to lose track of my thoughts. This is it for now, but i might add something later. In the end i want to say: Fellow Kerbals, give another chance to the Career Mode. It really deserves it. And, of course, please help me with spreading this word to the devs. KSP 2 devs, i hope that this post makes you re-think your position about Career Mode in KSP 2 and helps you make the sequel as good as possible! And of course feel free to share any ideas on this topic! -------------------------------------------------------------------- EDIT 25.06.2020 A new video on KSP YT channel came out(link) I want to draw your attention on a short glimpse of VAB UI at 4:28. As you can see Protective Rocket Nose Cone Mk7 has a cost of 111 Ore and 11.1 Uranium, which confirms that "cost in resources" i suggested earlier is in fact implemented in KSP 2. Now i can live in peace. Huge thanks to devs! <3

Does this have any conflicts with RPM? Should i delete it before installing this? What should i do with PropConfig.zip?

Deleted wingtip and tbmProp duplicates. Well were making progress. Thanks for help with wingtip (literally my favorite wingpart in a whole game), and what about MK4 i might even uninstall it later, cause i never remember using them at least once.

i dont remember putting any additional patches for tweakscale in my gamedata. tbh i never heard about TMasteron5's patches until you mentioned it. upd2 something from airplane+ directory https://www.dropbox.com/s/y1874uzfx2nya93/TweakScale.cfg?dl=0 and yea theres this part @PART[smallwingConnectortip] { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = free } }

https://www.dropbox.com/s/sqdx5qvswib1br5/KSP.log?dl=0

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE (help me) [WRN 09:20:24.528] [TweakScale] **FATAL** Found a showstopper problem on smallwingConnectortip. [ERR 09:20:24.528] [TweakScale] **FATAL** Part smallwingConnectortip has a fatal problem due having duplicated properties - see issue #34 - https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/TweakScale/issues/34. [WRN 09:20:24.531] [TweakScale] **FATAL** Found a showstopper problem on tbmProp. [ERR 09:20:24.531] [TweakScale] **FATAL** Part tbmProp has a fatal problem due having duplicated properties - see issue #34 - https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/TweakScale/issues/34. [ERR 09:20:24.532] [TweakScale] part=miniboom (Mk0 Tail Connector) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.532] [TweakScale] part=halfmini (Mk0 Junior Liquid Fuel Fuselage) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.532] [TweakScale] part=minishortboom (Mk0 Tail Connector Short) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.532] [TweakScale] part=JuniorFuselage (Mk1 Junior Liquid Fuel Fuselage) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.532] [TweakScale] part=Mk1JuniorStructural (Structural Fuselage Junior) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.532] [TweakScale] part=Mk1SlantStructural (Structural Fuselage Offset) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.533] [TweakScale] part=mk2hAdapter (Mk2/H to 1.25m Adapter) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.533] [TweakScale] part=mk2hLiquid (Mk2h Liquid Fuel Fuselage) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.533] [TweakScale] part=mk2hboom (Mk2/H Flat Boom) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.533] [TweakScale] part=mk2mk2h (Mk2/H to Mk2 Adapter) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.533] [TweakScale] part=mk3s0-s0 (Mk3S0 to 0.625m Adapter) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.533] [TweakScale] part=mk3s0 (Mk3S0 Liquid Fuel Fuselage) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.533] [TweakScale] part=mk3s0booma (Mk3S0 Tail Connector A) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.533] [TweakScale] part=mk3s0boomb (Mk3S0 Tail Connector B) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.533] [TweakScale] part=mk3s0jr (Mk3S0 Liquid Fuel Fuselage Junior) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.533] [TweakScale] part=mk3s1-s1 (Mk3S1 to 1.25m Adapter) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.533] [TweakScale] part=mk3s1 (Mk3S1 Liquid Fuel Fuselage) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.533] [TweakScale] part=mk3s1booma (Mk3S1 Tail Connector A) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.533] [TweakScale] part=mk3s1boomb (Mk3S1 Tail Connector B) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.533] [TweakScale] part=mk3s1jr (Mk3S1 Liquid Fuel Fuselage Junior) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.533] [TweakScale] part=mk3s1p5-mk3s1 (Mk3S1.5-Mk3S1 Liquid Fuel Fuselage) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.533] [TweakScale] part=mk3s1p5-s1p5 (Mk3S1.5 to 1.875m Adapter) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.533] [TweakScale] part=mk3s1p5 (Mk3S1.5 Liquid Fuel Fuselage) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.533] [TweakScale] part=mk3s1p5doorbase (Mk3S1.5 Cargo Bay) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.533] [TweakScale] part=mk3s1p5hull (Mk3S1.5 Structural Fuselage) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.533] [TweakScale] part=mk3s1p5jr (Mk3S1.5 Liquid Fuel Fuselage Junior) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.534] [TweakScale] part=s1p5 (1.875m Liquid Fuel Fuselage) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.534] [TweakScale] part=s1p5jr (1.875m Liquid Fuel Fuselage Junior) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.534] [TweakScale] part=shortboom (Short Tail Connector B) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.534] [TweakScale] part=shortboomb (Short Tail Connector A) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.534] [TweakScale] part=size2taila (Tail Connector Size 2A) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.534] [TweakScale] part=size2tailashort (Short Tail Connector Size 2A) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.534] [TweakScale] part=size2tailb (Tail Connector Size 2B) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.534] [TweakScale] part=size2tailbshort (Short Tail Connector Size 2B) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.534] [TweakScale] part=S2Hull (Structural Hull S2) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.534] [TweakScale] part=s2CargoRamp (Size 2 Cargo Ramp) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.534] [TweakScale] part=s2cargobayS (Size 2 Cargo Bay CRG-15) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.534] [TweakScale] part=size2CrewCabin (Size 2 Crew Cabin) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.534] [TweakScale] part=size2Fuselage (Size 2 Liquid Fuel Fuselage) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.534] TweakScale::PrefabDryCostWriter: negative dryCost: part=size2Fuselage, DryCost=-3.814697E-05 [ERR 09:20:24.534] [TweakScale] part=size2under (Size 2 Radial Liquid Fuel Mount) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [ERR 09:20:24.534] [TweakScale] part=S2Structural (Structural Fuselage S2) Exception on Sanity Checks: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter.checkForShowStoppers (.Part p) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at TweakScale.PrefabDryCostWriter+<WriteDryCost>d__3.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [WRN 09:20:24.534] [TweakScale] Removing TweakScale support for landingskid. [ERR 09:20:24.534] [TweakScale] Part landingskid didn't passed the sanity check due using FSbuoyancy module - see issue #9 https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/TweakScale/issues/9. [WRN 09:20:24.537] [TweakScale] **FATAL** Found a showstopper problem on mk4cockpit-shoulder-1. [ERR 09:20:24.537] [TweakScale] **FATAL** Part mk4cockpit-shoulder-1 has a fatal problem due having duplicated properties - see issue #34 - https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/TweakScale/issues/34. [WRN 09:20:24.537] [TweakScale] **FATAL** Found a showstopper problem on mk4cockpit-shoulder-2. [ERR 09:20:24.537] [TweakScale] **FATAL** Part mk4cockpit-shoulder-2 has a fatal problem due having duplicated properties - see issue #34 - https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/TweakScale/issues/34. [WRN 09:20:24.537] [TweakScale] **FATAL** Found a showstopper problem on mk4cockpit-shoulder-3. [ERR 09:20:24.537] [TweakScale] **FATAL** Part mk4cockpit-shoulder-3 has a fatal problem due having duplicated properties - see issue #34 - https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/TweakScale/issues/34. [WRN 09:20:24.548] [TweakScale] Removing TweakScale support for EnginePlate1p5. [ERR 09:20:24.548] [TweakScale] Part EnginePlate1p5 didn't passed the sanity check due having a ModulePartVariants with Mass - see issue #13 https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/TweakScale/issues/13. [WRN 09:20:24.548] [TweakScale] Removing TweakScale support for EnginePlate2. [ERR 09:20:24.548] [TweakScale] Part EnginePlate2 didn't passed the sanity check due having a ModulePartVariants with Mass - see issue #13 https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/TweakScale/issues/13. [WRN 09:20:24.548] [TweakScale] Removing TweakScale support for EnginePlate3. [ERR 09:20:24.548] [TweakScale] Part EnginePlate3 didn't passed the sanity check due having a ModulePartVariants with Mass - see issue #13 https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/TweakScale/issues/13. [WRN 09:20:24.548] [TweakScale] Removing TweakScale support for EnginePlate4. [ERR 09:20:24.548] [TweakScale] Part EnginePlate4 didn't passed the sanity check due having a ModulePartVariants with Mass - see issue #13 https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/TweakScale/issues/13. [WRN 09:20:24.550] [TweakScale] Removing TweakScale support for Tube1. [ERR 09:20:24.550] [TweakScale] Part Tube1 didn't passed the sanity check due having a ModulePartVariants with Mass - see issue #13 https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/TweakScale/issues/13. [WRN 09:20:24.550] [TweakScale] Removing TweakScale support for Tube1p5. [ERR 09:20:24.550] [TweakScale] Part Tube1p5 didn't passed the sanity check due having a ModulePartVariants with Cost - see issue #13 https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/TweakScale/issues/13. [WRN 09:20:24.550] [TweakScale] Removing TweakScale support for Tube2. [ERR 09:20:24.550] [TweakScale] Part Tube2 didn't passed the sanity check due having a ModulePartVariants with Mass - see issue #13 https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/TweakScale/issues/13. [WRN 09:20:24.550] [TweakScale] Removing TweakScale support for Tube3. [ERR 09:20:24.550] [TweakScale] Part Tube3 didn't passed the sanity check due having a ModulePartVariants with Mass - see issue #13 https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/TweakScale/issues/13.

Any thoughts on how will this interact with stock inventory from new DLC?

they might be upside down. check it.

https://github.com/PapaJoesSoup/BDArmory/issues/629

nah that looks like 6. look more closely. count them by straight lines, where explosion texture collides with terrain. and yes. sound files are ok. and silence is not constant. sometimes there is sound, sometimes there isnt. i added 1 more screenshot where you can see them more clearly https://imgur.com/a/8m6qdPR. like 0.5 seconds earlier.

there is a problem. only few bomblets are detonating. count the amount of bomblets and then count amount of explosions. https://imgur.com/a/8m6qdPR ~50 bomblets and only 6 no-sound explosions. there is definitely a problem here.

did it again https://imgur.com/a/hCBn0vR

tested already. dropped 1 bomb on top of the landed a-10. after hit it looked like deconstructed lego, but most parts survived. unfortunately didnt make a screenshot.

yup sounds like truth. but for me it doesnt work like that anymore. i did my research in the config&source files at github. looks like cluster bomb part itself works completely fine, but after deployment it triggers something else, that guides those little bomblets untill they explode. so i think that "something else" is broken for me.