Tybot

Oh. Well then. That works.

Not sure where this lies on the priority list, but on the NF Spacecraft FAQ I see that RPM integration was removed for rework. I'd trimmed NF:S from my mod list specifically because, as great as they are, didn't have RPM integration and went back to using stock pods. I didn't know they used to have it at one point. If you're wondering if it's a desired feature, FWIW I'd be using the heck out of NF Spacecraft if that was returned.

I'm just spitballing here, but I was thinking about how I'd love to be the guy to go around fixing everyone's cockpits to be RPM compatible but I have neither the expertise nor time for it. But a thought popped in my head that VisualViewer has the Toolbar option of having a pop out window that shows what you'd see if it were on an RPM MFD. Would it be hard to add something similar to RPM? Have a window you can toggle on that floats over the display with a MFD for when you don't have an RPM ready cockpit? Or maybe even to use it outside of IVA? It's not nearly as immersive as the real thing but it's a much preferred stop-gap than nothing.

Question, trying to finally delve into this for my modded career save. I know size and density multipliers are randomized and that asteroid classes are rendered meaningless. (A fact I lament but that's besides the fact.) Once tracked, is there a way to check what the mass of an asteroid is without having to visit it first? Having to send out a probe for every rock I find with no indication as to which ones are small enough to actually work with will get expensive.

Unexpected bonuses!

If you mean a minimum concentration, yes. Except I do believe it's 5%.

I'm trying to reach an understanding behind the general logic of efficiency parts. I get the basic idea, lower tier parts assisting in the production rate of higher tier, I'm wondering about generally how much of an advantage it gives you over having them work independently. Is the point to just consolidate your lower tier production at a 1:1 ratio, or is there a point where adding efficiency parts becomes more advantageous than simply adding more production? AKA, if I ship a Industrial Refinery would it be a waste not to tack on a couple Smelt-o-matics to boost efficiency? Should I be looking to add efficiency parts before adding more Refineries? Once I understand that I can wrap my head around the math much easier.

You sir are a gentleman and a scholar.

Do we know if construction ports are working as intended? I consider myself to be a fairly smart person and yet I for all I try can't get these things to snap to any non-0 angle, if at all. It makes me frightened and confused and my poor masterpiece (read: marginally above average) science station is suffering. If this winds up being a mod conflict of unknown origin I may cry. As I start yet another save and neuter my modlist. I'd actually be most happy if it was due to my own mere incompetence.

Is this the same as it's always been or made complicated by 1.2?

I can only get them to snap if the two docking ports are rotated to be aligned relative to each other (ie, both ports' "up" is pointing in the same direction). I currently have a station that has parts rotated at wrong angles. User error is a possibility but I've tried maybe 20-30 times while changing settings around but try as I might I can't seem to get anything to align 90 degrees to the right with snap on.

Also got an error after updating. I've done no manual edits of my save.

Is it expected that the Heat and Drag passive overlays don't display anything but a value of 0? Both don't change for me even during reentry for either IVA or window.

Well @linuxgurugamer maintains both now (along with several others), so hopefully as he knocks mods off his checklist he'll get to VesselView. RPM + VV really ads a whole new dimension to the game as it gives you the ability to do so much in IVA.

There is Vessel Viewer which also integrates into RPM but it has yet to update to 1.2.

I don't know if I've fully tested this, but I believe if you have a part set via 'Control from here', the vessel that contains that part is the one that persists. Try setting control on the cockpit of the vessel you want to keep before undocking.

Yup, if players want to fine tune their trajectory they can take control of the stage and set it up themselves. Such maneuvers would likely happen well above the altitude they unload and trigger the reentry check. It would mean any landing in a poor biome would be bad, powered or not. But that's a worthy sacrifice for simplicity. Would the configuration part be an area someone could help you with? When and if the time comes.

Would adding part dependency make development considerably more complicated? Maybe a check for any part that uses or stores LF or LOX as a resource, rather than a manual list that would make more work for modded parts? Just thinking out loud.

I have a question/feature request, probably something to be added sometime after the initial release but wanted to mention it while it was in my head. Skip down to TL;DR if you don't care to read my entire thought process, I do have a tendency to over-explain. I've had one issue with SR that I have to just ignore when I use it, and it's that there's a reason we don't reuse liquid fueled engines when splashed down in the ocean in real life. Seawater gets into the components and corrodes them to the point that restoring them would take more money and effort than making a new engine. It's the main reason the shuttle was designed how it was. SRB's are simple enough that they can land in seawater fine, and the liquid fuel tank is dropped on its own while the engines come back with the shuttle, even though they serve no purpose without the tank. It's also why the Falcon 9 being able to steer itself back down onto a barge is so important. Without there being a cost to liquid fueled rockets going into the water, it makes it so much easier to just slap a bunch of parachutes on to the stages and get a high value back for them no matter where they land. Why add a probe core and engineer a powered landing when parachutes are so much easier? (Besides it being cool.) But at the same time we don't need to make the solution TOO complicated, for both coding and gameplay purposes. So what I propose is this: TL;DR: Would it be not overly complicated to add a difficulty option that zero's out any value back for LFR engines (and perhaps also reduce the value for LFR tanks) that land unpowered over water? And retain the normal calculated value if they land on dry land, or if it lands under power. This will create more dynamic gameplay in a few ways. It gives more importance back to SRB's, as currently LFR stages are far to cost effective in early stages as you can easily get close to full value back for them, as they land a short distance away from the pad. It also encourages the player to either try and get them to re-enter over another continent, or even better it encourages them to utilize the nifty powered landing simulating you've added to SR. For simplicity's sake, we can assume that if it's a powered landing there is a target waiting for it. While adding a requirement to have it in range of a prepared landing target could be great fun, I'm not looking to give you any more work than needed.

(Reminder, if you must ask anything pertaining to CKAN, including the availability of configs, refer to the stickied CKAN thread. Mod authors everywhere will thank you.) Thank you for all your hard work @Nertea. Keeping up on so many mods has got to be a huge personal investment. You're one of the champions of KSP.

I'll be very forgiving of any graphical glitches if it means the tech tree can be set in place to start the career. Some mods you can get away with putting off adding for a few days after you've started your save. But CTT you need from day one.

Take my energy @Nertea

It's a widely reported bug. Seems to crop up if you've loaded a large number of modded parts.

Yes, come join the rest of us. Edit: For clarity, KER for 1.2 is still in development and hasn't had a full release yet. There won't be anything in CKAN until that happens. The Github method is for if you're impatient.

That is your answer, until told otherwise.