EvanR

Hi I am encountering an inconsistency with Contract Pack: Field Research and planet pack JNSQ. For the most part the field science contracts they send me on seem reasonable. A few are somewhat annoying like "Landed in <whatever ocean>", but are still technically possible. However I picked this cool sounding rare science contract: Biome: Kerbin's Ice Caps Situation: Splashed Down Experiment: Crew Report Experiment: EVA Report Experiment: Temperature Scan The suggested waypoint is actually quite far from the Ice Caps themselves, in the Arctic Sea. In any case I could not do the contract there, I guess the reason is obvious. Then I spent a long time flying randomly around the Ice Caps looking for a place to splash down. However any water seems to be Kerbin's Shores or Arctic Sea. Since the waypoint didn't work and the Ice Caps seem to be entirely solid ground... maybe the suggested waypoint generator is bugged for some planet packs.

Hi these planets are so great. Let me tell you about a quirk that maybe is possible to fix maybe not. I was on my way into reentry from 800k and decided to just look out the IVA window for 20 minutes. Losing track of time I looked at the (inexplicably working) altitude meter in the stock mk1 pod and got freaked out by the reading. I quickly spun around and staged, but then checked normal view to find I was still at 300k. The meter seems to be off by 200k for some reason... EDIT nevermind I was just missing the 100,000s digit just doesn't exist on that meter!

The similarity is with ReStockPlus (not ReStock) which adds new missing parts (including two that MissingHistory also adds), but you are right that it (ReStockPlus) also has a patch to make some SRBs gimbal and modifies the volume stat of the oscar-B fuel tank. Other than that, the two mods are directed in mostly the same direction. It's a bit miraculous that they only overlap in two porkjet parts. But I understand your point

Actually I tried to combine the "final" two versions into one file and again it did not work. I tried to detect what bug you found but couldn't, so maybe that curly brace is still there somewhere.

It finally works. Just to reiterate what happened: Removing the duplicate parts (second config file above) will not work unless those patches are in a file by themselves. Will reproduce the file here: @PART[liquidEngine303]:AFTER[MissingHistory]:NEEDS[ReStockPlus] { @category = none @subcategory = 0 @TechRequired = Unresearcheable %TechHidden = true } @PART[liquidEngineT15]:AFTER[MissingHistory]:NEEDS[ReStockPlus] { @category = none @subcategory = 0 @TechRequired = Unresearcheable %TechHidden = true } Thanks to @UnanimousCoward for that and let's hope that either MissingHistory and ReStockPlus incorporates this into their distribution. One thing came to mind while struggling with this. Aren't MissingHistory and ReStockPlus aiming for the same sort of purpose, hence the slight overlap. Wouldn't it make sense to merge them into the same part pack? Thanks to MissingHistory it's clear many things are missing from ReStockPlus. Would have saved some headache here for user for sure. Alternatively agree which parts should be introduced by which mod, i.e. which one "has ownership" so there is no overlap. Just a thought don't hate me

Yes I have latest ReStock ReStock+ and MissingHistory. ReStock+ and MissingHistory both contain the engines T15 Valiant 303 Pug. But neither mod has provision to hide their version. Hence the bottom part of your patch... Yeah latest versions, brand new save, both parts show in R & D and can be unlocked and used together. I'm not sure why that part of the patch isn't working. Maybe there is something up with my Module Manager cache or something Removing those duplicates was the whole reason I was here xD

Sweet those changes make the 1.875 service bay look right and act right. @UnanimousCoward Unfortunately I have two pugs and two valiants in the tech tree and in the VAB: This is with the original patch and the updated one The one with the variants is better IMO, not sure which mod it came from, this is all getting very confusing : )

Hi I tried your MM patch and it seems to break the 1.875 service bay doors... @UnanimousCoward KSP 1.7.0 with Making History and No Breaking Ground

Nope makes perfect sense now I don't know what I was thinking. Thanks for the detailed response!

Just trying to clarify, is the point of this mod mainly to stop a fuel tank from going up with zero oxidizer (in case it isn't necessary) and then flying around with the ability to load oxidizer later? Does it change the mass of the empty tank at all or is that it. My first reaction was to just zero out oxidizer.

We just tried the latest version of LMP with KSP 1.7.1 to see how well it worked. For the most part things work pretty well considering! But let me report some weirdness for posterity: EVA. With each player launching and rendezvousing two separate ships piloted by 1 kerbal, everything went more or less smoothly. But then we tried to do an EVA to swap ships. It couldn't be done. When you EVA any kerbals from your ship, a representation of the EVA kerbal does appear for the other player, but no kerbals are removed from the ship on the other players computer. This means other plays are not able to board your empty ship. If you manage to return to your ship things work normally. But if for some reason you don't, this half empty / half full ship can't be boarded. If you attempt to switch to the half empty ship you will see a half missing kerbal portait! Also during the EVA the kerbal roster in astronaut complex begins to show the kerbal as available as well as assigned. Ladders are quite fickle, moving or not. A kerbal doing fine on a ladder on one machine may be clipping through and applying excessive forces to the craft on the other machine. Grabbing a ladder at all with atmosphere was not accepted, F bounces you away. Parachute graphics don't show for other players, but fortunately the parachute forces do apply to the ship. The safety bubble. Other players can't spectate your ship from the tracking station when your craft begins on the launch pad or on the runway, but if you move slightly then they can, even before leaving the safety bubble. Would be convenient to spectate any time.

After looking at the debug messages it does seem that the parts do get experience, though very seldomly. And when they do get an extra point of quality it will not become apparent until you inspect a fully integrated ship, as the quality readout at any other time in the VAB seems to be bugged. On normal difficulty you begin with a 5% chance that parts will perform properly whenever a check is made. This check is made at launch time at various points. Supposedly this check occurs later in a mission too but I couldn't get that far. After integration you get an extra 20% bonus. Super easy difficulty gives you another 25% bonus, and upgraded facilities may give you a bonus but it never seemed to apply in actual flight. If you pass this check the part gets a "successful flight" (not shown anywhere). Every 5 successful flights (by default) the part gets an extra 1% bonus to the base 5%. Again you won't notice this unless you go through an integration pass and load the craft with the part in question. The max quality of a part is 80% by default, but when you add difficulty bonus and perhaps facility bonus it could give you over 100% chance. Given this behavior with default settings it seems to me you will be doing static fire tests for a very long time before the mk1 parachute can be trusted, much less any engines. I was able to begin surviving failed launches on Normal difficulty after using all of my money at the test bench to get a 75% parachute rating and packing 6 redundant chutes. But now I'm broke ... Another weirdness to look out for: if you enable debug mode then failures and explosions will stop happening by themselves, you will have to read the log and trigger them yourself, though you can't seem to trigger every type of failure (critical failure of pod or parachute which causes it to vaporize). The main gotcha is that failures don't return to normal after disabling debug mode until you leave the game and reload. They came back for me after leaving to main menu and coming back.

I checked out this mod in KSP 1.7, specifically BARIS release 1.8.3 The version file specifies max KSP is 1.6.99 and you get a warning to that effect (though weirdly formatted). Ignoring the warning, there seems to be many problems trying to play. Some of these were reported over a year ago on this thread. - No matter how many static firings I do, successful or unsuccessful, none of my parts gain flight experience / quality. - Clicking the minus button in VAB integrations window, or anywhere around it, clears the bay and makes workers vanish. - It is sometimes possible to hire up to 75 out of 50 workers for the VAB, and assign 50 out of 25 to work on an integration. - One time when mk1 pod failed, the failure manifested itself as pod disappearing in a puff of smoke, killing the crew but not giving me the mission failed report. All in all, if I can't gain flight experience then the mod is unplayable. The other issues could be worked around during play, if you were generous.

@captinjoehenry Is your vessel distant and white? Haha

Hi Was looking to try this mod on KSP 1.7, but I get the impression that command pod mk1-2 is an old pod that was removed from the game? I see mk1pod_v2 files in the GameData/Squad folder, but not sure whether this is it. I tried putting @category = Pods into the config, but no new pod appears in the VAB.

Hi I really like this mod. But I noticed a visual behavior that I hope could be improved. When looking in the direction of the sun from behind kerbin, the skybox will dim to very dark. Since you have a "360 degree sunset" there, that's fine. But if you look in the direction of the sun from behind minmus, which has no atmosphere by default, I see nothing due to the very dark skybox (and other visual mods that make the back side of a planet very dark too). With no source of light whatsoever I would expect to see my skybox stars! Really I would love to see an ominous gap in my star field where stars are expected. Let me know if this should become a github issue or is a silly gripe!