DeadJohn

Try CKAN. It might have old links to Github, Spacedock, plus more obscure hosting sites. If you remember the mod name you can also try direct searches of Github and Spacedock. Be wary of old mods on unknown hosting sites. It's pretty easy to insert a virus into a DLL.

I don't think there's a need to increase contract rewards for KSRSS. I usually play at 2.5/2.7x scale with either KSRS or JNSQ planets, plus contract packs built on top of the Contract Configurator mod. I don't know whether CC adjusts rewards based on planet size, but I get playable reward settings. My most recent KSRSS playthrough was at fairly difficult contract reward settings: funds at 60% default, science at 80%. Comments on that: Funds were tight early career. Part test contracts are a good way to gather funds, and also create reasons for new rocket designs with specific parts. The Tourism Plus contract pack offers new ways to gather funds mid career. Science progression was challenging. I felt completely stalled once or twice, and could remedy it by driving a science rover around KSC. I also like building planes to gather science from Earth biomes. Note that I was using Bluedog Design Bureau parts, so I had extra science experiments available. A lot depends on which tech tree you are using. The stock tree is pretty shallow. If using a more complex tech tree, you will likely need to use science labs to get through the end of the tree where some unlocks might take thousands of science points.

You don't have enough facts to know whether the QA team is to blame. It's an unwise career move for insiders to provide too much detail. We don't know what led to EA going out in the current state. Maybe QA screwed up? Maybe the devs and QA asked to push EA back a month but someone above them insisted on sticking to the announced February date? Maybe someone in the decision chain didn't want to tell their boss bad news; that could be the fault of a lazy worker or a mercurial manager?

Are you looking for a mod? Stockalike Station Parts has expandable, animated rings.

IMO it's too soon to be reviewing. KSP2's current state is more like a prototype than a product. I expect things to be further along when they have science mode in the game. Have fundamental bugs been fixed? Are deltaV and TWR shown to players? Did they avoid adding too many new bugs with each patch? "Indifferent" is the best word to describe my feelings. It's just a game. I'm hopeful it will turn into a great game, yet disappointed that 3 years of delays didn't make more progress. Software development is hard.

[Deleted my question because I found a prior post with an answer]

The OP created 3 (or more) similar threads. 2 say "carpetable" 1 says "compatible". Merge? https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/213289-why-are-all-the-near-future-mods-no-longer-compatible-in-ckan https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/213287-why-are-all-the-near-future-mods-no-longer-carpetable-in-ckan https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/213286-why-are-all-the-near-future-mods-no-longer-carpetable-in-ckan

1st post troll. #sarcasm: There's a fully polished version of KSP2 that was given to youtubers, yet a version with worse graphics and extra bugs was released to EA because the development team: Is part of a conspiracy against the OP? Likes drama? Is bored and likes to read complaint emails?

That was canon to KSP1. Many things from old science reports may have changed. Welcome to KSP2.

Respect != identical copy.

FYI the science config in that part is not working. CobaltWolf confirmed it a few pages back.

Regardless of having to tweak the fuel amounts, that interface uses dark gray numbers on a darker gray background. Poor readability and I hope they improve that portion of the UI.

Connecting multiple fandoms: Kerbal Barada Necktie! Kerbal Barada ... N [cough]!

Anyone who can help, I'm brand new to editing B9PS. Why isn't the spoilered code below working? I see the 2 subtypes show in the VAB PAW, but changing types doesn't change the crew capacity. It stays at zero for both. If I put a hardcoded "CrewCapacity = 7" just before that code, then crew stays at 7 regardless of what I pick. TweakScale has challenges scaling crew due to the way a prior KSP version changed things. Maybe that same thing is affecting B9PS (but it's more likely I'm making a novice mistake) Also, on a more advanced note, can I put an entire ModuleInventoryPart or otherwise vary packedVolumeLimit inside those SUBTYPEs? I want to have little inventory in the passenger model, and much in the cargo model. @blowfishThe wiki says "Please note that this feature [MODULE] is highly experimental, please talk to me before trying to use it".

@zer0Kerbal I'm not sure if you've had an opportunity to review my push request. No rush, just letting you know I'm going to experiment more this weekend to make the passenger vs. cargo versions more distinct, more like the ever-evolving Dreamchaser, and create better game balance. Passenger cabin carries 7 crew plus 3000l inventory. Cargo strongly reduces that to 4 crew and only 800l inventory, which seems like too much penalty for adding the top hatch. My current line of thought: Passenger: 7 crew, reduce cargo inventory to 650l inventory (same as stock 1.25m SEQ-9 container). Cargo: Zero crew, increase cargo inventory to 5000l (twice that of 2.5m SEQ-24 container). I'll try to find a better resource for estimating cargo volume and revise the inventory numbers above. The passenger version still has node placement quirks. If I can't resolve it with cfg changes I might change the passenger cfg to share the cargo hatch model. Some unfinished things noted with the earlier push. Localization, etc. Sample Craft with folding wings, similar to the real Dreamchaser announcements: I'll try stock robotic hinges but anticipate kraken. I might have to take liberties such as making more lift come from the cabin, less from the wings, to avoid torquing off the wings during reentry. Rear cargo module: The real Dreamchaser has plans to put an extra conical trunk and docking port aft of the cargo cabin. I can't create a model for it, but if I think of one from another mod with an open license I'll borrow it. Regardless, players who need more cargo space can kitbash service modules from stock or other mods. Holler if you think any of this should go in a different direction.