Mitokandria

Sure. Science transmissions that do not use the Science Review window (the 'keep', 'transmit', 'send to lab' window) don't trigger payment. Easiest way to replicate is to process some data in a Science lab then transmit the processed science using the Science Lab's "Transmit Science" button. Player receives Science points, but not money. This is also the case with mods that do not use the Science Review window when rewarding science points such as Tarsier Space Technologies' planetary body photos using telescopes and Research Bodies' "discover bodies" feature.

Thanks for the reply! Unfortunately, I don't see a log file for PYW. What I have in my game directory logs folder is: [Edit: I went back to the original mod and confirmed Lab science transmission is just not taken into account by the mod. Mod author never responded to the suggestions to add it.] +Kopernicus +KSPBurst +ModuleManager +SpaceTux Default.log KSP-AVC.log Logs-Kopernicus.zip MiniAVC-V2.log VOID.log ZeroMiniAVC.log

I'm voting "no" but only because it's an 'all or nothing'. The vehicle parts would be awesome, but the weapons would keep me away from the mod. There are weapons mods for KSP1 that are really popular and I'm sure a KSP2 mod like that would find it's fans as a separate mod.

I wanted to take a look at the source code for the mod to see if I could identify why some science rewards aren't being seen by the mod. It's been a very long time since I did any real coding, but I see there is a PlayYourWay.log listed in some places. Is this a log file? I could not find one in the folder. Looking through it I guess there is a 'watch' script that checks the Science points before and after a transmission, but it is triggered by the "transmit science" button in the Science Report window. Is that correct?

That is my point though. For many it appears to be the latter. The game is indeed still a work in progress, but only the dev-team knows what kind of sequel they are making. Since there hasn't been clear communication about what kind of sequel it'll be it leaves people to come to their own conclusions instead of a unified perception. It's creating a user v user v dev team atmosphere/vibe. As it is, until the game is closer to completion, no one but the dev team knows what kind of sequel it will be. My own perception is that, once completed, KSP2's primary genre will be a colony sim focused on resource management with space flight mechanics ('Inspired By' sequel) when what I was hoping for was a Space Flight Sim focused on science and physics with a colony mechanic ('Remake/Revised' style sequel). FTR Dakota is awesome. I wish the team had a few more Dakotas.

Does anyone still have access to this? The recycler on my Inflatable Habitat only seems to work when it's the active vessel. Additionally, the Snacks! simulator doesn't recognize that the inflatable habitat is currently 'inflated' and has crew capacity. (Active Vessel-Snacks! shows 3/6 crew, but at KSC Snacks! shows 3/3 crew)

From going through posts on here it seems there are two different schools of thought on sequels: A sequel should aim to recreate all/most of the previous game's primary mechanics in a new or updated engine utilising modern hardware, optimization techniques, and lessons learned to improve performance and stability. Then add/revise/remove features to meet story development, incorporate mechanics/tweaks from popular community mods, and to meet new player expectations. A sequel should aim to create a brand new game using it's predecessor as inspiration; incorporating features from the previous game that meet the vision of this new game and leaving out features that do not meet this vision. Adjust final vision to meet player expectations. It seems most people, myself included, were lead to believe KSP 2 would follow the first school of thought. What we appear to be getting though is the second school of thought; a new game meant to bring in a wider player base while attempting to maintain the feel and essence of the original. Neither school of thought is really "superior" as there are plenty of excellent examples of both in gaming, but I think not making it clear from the start which school of thought the devs subscribe to has caused a lot of discord, infighting, and mistrust among the playerbase. This has been exacerbated by a lack of communication, transparency, and, to some people, honesty during EA development. I think KSP 2 will still end up being a good game, but perhaps not the game many fans of the original are looking for.

I couldn't put into words my feelings seeing this announcement myself, but this kinda sums up my feelings quite nicely. Credit where credit is due though they did address one feedback item with the UI recently. Mostly the colouring of orbital markers and some icon changes.

I actually made a similar suggestion.

Does this still work with the current version of KSP2?

Oo having missions for some of the more obvious experiments might work. Make the mission rewards 0 and you have a readily available list of easy to achieve experiments while leaving a lot of others as hidden. As a nice bonus feature it would also help players to see if the mod is working.

So what you're saying is you're NOT completely insane? So just a little insane?

I also thought he was just talking to himself until I got to the moderator post (indicating he was not talking to himself). I am curious about the mod, but the spacedock page seems to be gone now too.

Is it possible to turn them off entirely or maybe set them to only active vessel?

Heat Shields definitely don't scale well for 2.5x. Doable still just ...phew!