panarchist

This right here, 100%. I think that's why I play almost entirely sandbox. Honestly, I'd rather have a system where I could choose on which date parts unlock, so I could simulate going from 60s NASA ->Skylab -> STS -> FutureStuff without having to worry about getting enough funds / science to level up. I want progression, just not in the traditional way. Ditto. I wasn't a big fan of it with science either. What I really want is to be able to have science mean something but not have it determine if I can have a space program. Don't hinge my unlocks on it. I want a reason to *do* science, but I don't want it to impact whether or not I can do a launch.

This is what happens when we all use sloppy terminology for years. Technically, building a ship in orbit by launching 2 smaller ships from the surface and docking them is "orbital construction". So is docking 2 smaller ships already in orbit. Building a ship in orbit from raw materials, whether mined from an asteroid or launched from a planetary surface by making the parts is "orbital manufacture". EL in KSP1 is orbital manufacture, and having that in KSP2 is definitely a ways off. This is what happens when we all use sloppy terminology for years. Technically, building a ship in orbit by launching 2 smaller ships from the surface and docking them is "orbital construction". So is docking 2 smaller ships already in orbit. Building a ship in orbit from raw materials, whether mined from an asteroid or launched from a planetary surface by making the parts is "orbital manufacture". EL in KSP1 is orbital manufacture, and having that in KSP2 is definitely a ways off. This is what happens when we all use sloppy terminology for years. Technically, building a ship in orbit by launching 2 smaller ships from the surface and docking them is "orbital construction". So is docking 2 smaller ships already in orbit. Building a ship in orbit from raw materials, whether mined from an asteroid or launched from a planetary surface by making the parts is "orbital manufacture". EL in KSP1 is orbital manufacture, and having that in KSP2 is definitely a ways off.

pre0.13.3 and 0.18, because we'll having docking out of the gate this time.

Someday maybe I will actually write the KSP fan fiction that explains them. In the meantime, I am messing up the guessing of my predecessor, and guessing that the next reply will come from @Abel Military Services

Stealing @Akagi's thunder. Perhaps @Akagi will still reply next?

Agreed on all points, but with an exception to #3, which is if the devs placed a concentrated resource on the rogue planet valuable enough to warrant the journey. (if such a thing existed) Anything which would qualify is probably wildly unrealistic.

There is - you may have missed it. Variance = 0 ~ 100 (% how noisy the resource distribution is between highest and lowest amount, not necessarily your defined Min and Max.) Dispersal = 0 ~ 100 (multiplies the sharpness/contrast of that noise and makes the high points much more abundant and the low points much less abundant)

That's done through Kerbal Actuators, isn't it? Several non-WBI mods also use that as a dependency.

That was my thought, too. Barring a bug in Sigma Dimensions or something in Kopernicus we're not aware of, I think that's the most likely candidate to check.

Why do you need to homeswitch to something else? KK supports bases on other bodies, you just have to have someone on the ground there and then CTRL-K to create the map decal, group, launch site, etc. After that, you can select to launch from that site - none of that requires EL.

If @tmccreight651 is using the 2.5x Rescale Continued config, then that may be it. That file has CustomSoISize = 0. When =0, Sigma Dimensions multiplies the SOI by the rescale modifier (2.5) rather than whatever is intended. If CustomSoISize is defined in multiple places, (and/or if the sphereOfInfluence parameter is defined in multiple places for that body) then the behavior will depend on the MM patch load order. In any case, it's not going to be simple to find the root cause since there are multiple moving parts.

Simple Construction isn't compatible with EL because it *is* EL - as in it uses the same Launchpad.dll on purpose and by design. (this is also why EL shows up as installed) It's not compatible because KSP doesn't like having multiple instances of the same dll. Any mod built to support EL will support SC automatically.

It's only hard if the platform is stationary. Get it up to speed (Airships can unrealistically get up to 100m/s of horizontal velocity if you put sizeable engines on them), and you can almost just lift straight up. My biggest gripes on HL Airships and Heisenberg are the lack of proper wind resistance limiting speeds, and the completely unrealistic buoyancy. Hangar bays in Heisenberg would only work for real in craft like this with lift envelopes on both sides. Otherwise they would rotate upside down since the "empty" top half is so much heavier than the bottom half. In any case, flight operations on these airships are much easier if the airship is moving, just as it is with "real" aircraft carriers. This reminds me, I need to build me some Buffalo 2 planes. Just 'cause it's fun. :-D

Which EVE pack is that? (specifically I'm asking which CityLights files?)

Nice to see another TrackIR user out there! Please tell me you posted the plane on Kerbal-X, I'd love to fly this. Nice showcase of KSC in RSS, BTW!

GU isn't even the first multi-star mod. There isn't a feature in KSP2 without a mod analog in KSP1 - including colonies.

Per the FAQ on the OP: Is this mod compatible with the RemoteTech mod? No, they are not. RemoteTech disables KSP's CommNet and runs its own infrastructure but this mod depends on CommNet to operate.

AfterKerbin has several CFG files with "FOR [AK]" in them. @FullOfStars When any CFG file has "FOR [X] " in it, if X does not exist in the Modlist, MM will create entry X in the Modlist. This is so that when CFGs are called prior to Mod X being loaded, the settings are already there later when it is. A side effect is that if your mod has no DLL, all the settings will be in the specified object in the Modlist even if the directory is renamed. (i.e. all AK stuff is in "AK" even though the folder is named "AfterKerbin") The behavior is described in the "Patch Ordering" page in the MM wiki. Specifically regarding Scatterer and AfterKerbin, KSP loads "Scatterer_config" from /GameData/AfterKerbin/scatterer/config.cfg into the KSP GameDatabase first since it's an insert. Then MM looks for a DLL and doesn't find any. (Other than the DLL in Scatterer, if present) Then it scans all the configs in alphabetical order looking for FOR - it hits /GameData/AfterKerbin/_Core00/AK_MainMenuBody.cfg and sees "@Kopernicus:FOR[AK]" and adds "AK" to the list of loaded mods. From this point on, anything with "FOR [AK]" or "NEEDS [AK]" will execute. Then it adds "AfterKerbin" to the loaded mods list, since that's the top level directory name. This tripped me up early on, and does for a lot of people. Some badly-written patches use "FOR" when they mean "NEEDS", and the FOR statement creates the entry if it doesn't already exist. After the above happens, Scatterer runs, and then AK_Scatterer.cfg runs. Looking at Scatterer, I see 2 issues: 1. If Scatterer isn't present, the config file still gets created 2. Scatterer also creates "Scatterer_config", after it's been created by AK. I actually don't know how KSP handles creating 2 nodes of the same name. I think that this is likely the root cause of the behavior you were seeing.

Thank you very much for adding SMa!

System Heat has optional patches to integrate with NF Electrical for reactor control. Kerbal Atomics has no such patches - the optional patches in KA are "KerbalAtomicsNTRsUseLF" and "KerbalAtomicsLH2NTRModSupport". Sounds like the CKAN metadata is not current.

Based on your screenshot, it looks like the radiator is assigned to the correct loop, but it doesn't look like you enabled the radiator in flight. (since it looks "cold") Is the radiator "on"?

Which CityLights files are you using in this save? Is that AVP, or another mod?

Congrats and thanks for all the great mods! Enjoy the couple months before the KSP2 EA release!

Honestly, the carriers weren't much better. Occasionally the bug juice and the water both took on a little bit of that JP-5 taste. I was on one of the last conventional carriers - maybe it was better on the nuke bird farms.

I think I will as well. I play on a custom 2.667x Kerbin rescale, which is "helpful" for finding collider issues and other problems regarding moving on terrain. Happy to test it and see if I can break something.