NipperySlipples

Not having any form of occlusion makes the whole of the system boil down to just put an antenna on it and forget it. It feels pointless to me. Now it's just "going to the mun you use this antenna" going to Duna you use this antenna. Set and forget. Distance isn't enough to make it a worthwhile mechanic in my opinion.

Im most excited to see what this community can do when the kraken isnt around to smash up its creations. Cant wait to see the crazyness you are all going to create.

Unfortunately my game is far to custom for my KK harbors to be of much use to anyone. Its mostly a role play scenario. My kerbin is heavily edited to be more of a radioactive wasteland with kerbalism, Ive got custom paralax configs, terrain and texture edits and the sites themselves are all designed with the "kerbals live underground and its the end of a nuclear winter" thing in mind. I'm happy to share but I don't imagine it's what anyone else wants in their game. (and some of my sites require an additional mod for the statics, so extra dependency aswell ) Truth be told if it wasn't so customized, i'd of waited for you to do a better job of a jnsq version. I just knew with my terrain being different, i was going to have to move them all anyway. Thats an odd one and I was a little curious so i had a quick read through of some of the code on contract configurators git hub, I noticed in the way point generator there is .... and There are a bunch of other places this underwater flag comes up to. I'm not going to be in a position to test for a day or two, and I could be off the mark but it looks like there is an "underwater = true" property you can add to the waypoint definition to change the way it generates when the way point is underwater. Might be worth a quick test if it saves you having to write additional configs for each mission.

I love this. These missions are fun, add lots more to do to the game and are well designed and feel different with each repeat. In my hardcore playthrough they REALLY help flesh out the early game and provide a wonderfully fun source of income. Took me a few hours to build 16 custom harbors in KK, spread them out around my customized JNSQ game and setup the co-ordinates in the groups config. Easy given how much I got out of it with these new missions. I really appreciate the effort you took into making it so configurable. The dive sites were harder to adapt. Needed to setup all the waypoints after finding a new home for all the KK sites and anomalies. That took me the better part of a day. 100% worth it though. (and gave me a chance to over decorate the crap out of the areas around some of them with more statics) - Having done all this i have a few small suggestions. Im not sure its possible in a contract config ,but to make this extremely easy to configure to custom planets/ rescaled systems it would be nice if the dive site waypoints were automatically created relative to the KK dive site co-oridinates . something like dive1lat = SiteLocationLat - offset. This way we would only have to set up harbor location and Observer location. in the same vein multiplying the rewards by a distance factor could be helpful, so if using a rescaled system or another planet pack the rewards are more worthwhile without changing each contracts config. Also the starting KUMA dive certification, on a rescaled system it wants to dive to a reasonable depth (like 300m) and then the second part of the certification requires you to leave your vessel and touch the sea floor with a scuba-kerbal. However the sea floor might be a lot deeper than the 300m point your supposed to leave the sub at assuming your not on standard kerbin. I know the mod is just meant for stock and I'm using it in a way not (yet) intended but you may want to consider an optional depth check rather than the sea floor for the first dive. (like 500m or something) . better yet have it be dive to the sea floor or X depth whatever comes first. In JNSQ I wasn't able to complete the dive certification (and unlock the other contracts) until I was able to dive to around 1000m with pressure limits (and rational bouyancy/pressure mod) which was either very hard or very slow (just letting the kerbal sink the 700m). with your JNSQ-GAP and now this in my JNSQ game my biggest problem is that I'm not sure I'm ever going to leave kerbin. Thanks for all your work!

The first exception (_BuildManager) is from Eve-Redux, it hasnt caused me any actual issues in 1.12 yet. but if your having problems with your clouds then youll want to look for help in the eve thread. Secondly, You have multiple mods complaining about missing toolbar controller (which will also require click through blocker) you'll want to download and install both of those. Ferram lists Blizzy's toolbar for its toolbar requirment as well so you may also need to install that as well (not sure if its required anymore with toolbar controller) . With all of those installed you should see a few new mod related buttons that you were missing. Ferram , engine lighting, etc.. You probably also want to install KSP-recall , its a community bugfix mod and it will help with a few bugs your almost guaranteed to encounter in this install. but that's just my recommendation and not required to fix FAR. Lastly, your BD armory is throwing all kinds of errors. I don't use BD and I don't know if thats expected behavior, but i would be careful and watch for problems from them (or maybe check with the BD armory thread as-well) So to recap - ins tall all three of these to see some mod buttons your missing and hopefully fix your input locks -

Uncheck Automatic quick apply and the new parts buttons will function properly. Its just "automatically quick applying" again as soon as you press the button. Both buttons at the bottom are meant to be un-functional when that's checked. @roxik0 Got a chance to do a more robust test. You can reproduce flow graph errors consistently by 1) going into VAB. 2(create a ship with a tank/engine and command pod of your choosing. 3) Open scrap yard gui , uncheck auto quick apply and press new parts. 4) remove and replace any part on the ship. Scrap yard runs verify editor, and you get a flowgraph error on the command pod. Delta V readout goes wonky in the editor at this point. Until now its correct. Every time you press new parts and remove/re-add a part it will do it again, changing the delta v reading every time.

@linuxgurugamer @zer0Kerbal Sorry for this, Please ignore my previous suggested fix. As much as i don't want to admit this, I was wrong and didn't fix anything. Only hid the problem for awhile in my save. Id actually written a unit test yesterday that worked fine for 5 or 6 launches/recoveries before I posted....but well playing today i realized it was giving me wrong numbers again. So yeah, sorry. The bug still exists. Launch any vessel with KCT and scrap yard installed (and override funds on) , recover to VAB or SPH via construction time and your funds will go up well you also keep the vessel. It can be repeated by re-launching the same vessel from storage and recovering for more free funds. I no longer have any idea if its a problem with Scrapyard or KCT's scrap yard wrapper. I know override funds is a forever work in progress and was never fully implemented, but this feature used to work in previous versions (the last time i looked at it would of been around KSP 1.6- 1.7). If your looking for feedback , your hotfix seems to be working well. No flow graph errors and massively reduced lag on my end. Thanks.

@zer0Kerbal @linuxgurugamer I believe there is currently a bug with Scrap yard and KCT's interaction. When recovering to VAB or SPH via construction time if override funds is enabled, not only will you still receive funds and have the vessel, but some parts will be removed from your inventory that shouldn't. To see the bug, recover any vessel to SPH or VAB with Scrapyard and KCT installed and scrapyards override funds option enabled. Note you still have the vessel, but are also awarded a bunch of funds for the parts. Someone check my work but I've suggested a very simple fix on git hub here (Link Removed because I didnt manage to fix anything)

Ctrl-K will open up the Kerbal construct GUI. In there you can select the troublesome launchpad pieces and move them down with a movement tool similar to parts in the VAB.

I'm also playing with far and having no issues. Tweakchute makes its changes to moduleparachute. Far removes moduleparachute from parts and replaces it with its own module. Tweakchute wont do anything in a FAR game, but shouldn't be able to crash it. I think @Gordon Fecyk may have a third mod causing a conflict. However, since tweakchute isn't doing it's thing with FAR, you have to remember to set the altitude and pressure for opening chutes if you don't want to smash into the ground too fast. Luckily both are easily tweak-able in the editor. Were just an extra right click away from safety is all.

You are welcome to uninstall it if you dont enjoy it *not sarcastic* Next time try constructive criticism. Everything is fully customizable failure and difficulty wise. There are config's, There is a settings page. Your career settings may need to be adjusted if you find it not to your liking, or the chances of failure in oh scraps config. You also likely wouldn't of run out of funds if you were building just the booster for static fires until it was more reliable. If you just built 3 Large fully mission ready rockets and tried to launch them without testing or increasing generations then yeah....3 duplicate, super expensive, untested rockets made of large numbers of untested parts.....well that's the expected outcome. Try: 1) prebuilding just the boosters, testing them and increasing generation until they fire more often than not. (static fires) 2) not using a bunch of low generation parts all together at the same time on early rockets. a bunch of low generation/untested parts on the same craft will increase your chances of having a failure. Using a part failure mod like this or baris is a process of building up the reliability of your parts. You wont just launch a rocket and get to space unless your inventory is tested and improved. In short, Lots of people manage just fine. Maybe its user error. If you have any actual balance suggestions or questions, I'm sure the mod author would be happy to hear them. Without the sarcasm mind you.

Can you all please stop putting out incredible looking planet packs before I'm halfway done exploring the last one. It makes decisions for new save games really really hard. In all seriousness though, I took a quick look at this well waiting for the DLC. From what i can see it looks Quality with a capital Q. 1/4 scale is great. Planets look top notch visually. the pack works with a ton of other mods out of the box. I've already spotted some really cool looking places I want to explore and the arrangement of bodies really looks like its going to add some interesting challenges as you get further out to. I'm excited to play this. Thanks for all the work you guys are doing. I wouldn't expect less from the galileo team and you delivered.

These links aren't working. All 404 not found.

Ive just tested again and they are still working on my install. Here's a screenshot. Perhaps you have parachute failures turned off in the difficulty settings? Otherwise you may just be getting lucky, or perhaps have very high generation/safe parachutes? That being said, If you truly think its not working you can upload the save file and log somewhere for me and I will look into it.

@dkavolis Small bug report. Latest version creates NRE spam in the log as soon as you go EVA. I'm not sure if this is a problem. This is with a fresh install of 1.7 and nothing except module manager, FAR and modular flight integrator on a brand new save. Log file here. Reproduction steps are simple, launch a pod with a kerbal and EVA.