Gaius

No, if you make the fuselage wall as thick as real aircraft have them, there's plenty of room with them merely sitting. Two could stand side by side. Seated, it won't be any problem at all. Sorry if the pic doesn't make that clear, but it is the case. There's room for two side by side with an aisle down the middle, plenty of headroom, and realistically-sized fuselage walls. You could fit two humans side by side in an Mk2 fuselage. It's taller than many human-operated vehicles that do, even when you consider the sloping sides. For Kerbals, no sweat...

There should be plenty of headroom for at least three seated side-by-side. Remember Kerbals are a lot shorter than humans. Lack posted a great picture of this. They will have plenty of headroom. EDIT: Here, more to the point... Two across is not an issue. Three across would not be an issue. Five across wouldn't be a problem if they took off their helmets...

Alternately, the default level could be set to a positive number, so that the same result could be achieved without resort to "absurd numbers" (as negative numbers were historically called). I've been planning on adding a config setting to set the default tank level. I'll make sure that gets into the next update, and probably make the default default 1. Separate level settings per resource is another thing that will probably get added to the pump options window at some point. That's very much on my wishlist, too. That ball is in TaranisElsu's court, so I can't make any promises on when or even if, but I can say we've exchanged PMs and they have my permission to incorporate any or all of this mod into TACFB.

Some of the locations will vary depending on choices you make during the process, but here's an example install. Install Unity. Navigate to the packages directory inside Unity, e.g. C:\Program Files (x86)\Unity\Editor\Standard Packages Unpack the contents of PartTools 020.zip here. Run Unity, select the "Create New Project" tab Under "Import the following packages:", check the box next to "PartTools.unitypackage" Under "Project Location", set where you want your project to be, e.g. C:\Users\me\My Documents\MyPartsProject Create the project, then quit Unity. Navigate to the Assets folder inside your project, e.g. C:\Users\me\My Documents\MyPartsProject\Assets Delete the PartTools folder you find there, replace it with the one from PartTools023.zip Rerun Unity and rejoice!

Eh? The KSPX LV-NB is 2.5 times the thrust and 2.22 times the weight of the LV-N, with absolutely identical Isp.

The reason is that you've defined the top and bottom as being attachable by parts in their upright position, and the other four nodes attachable by parts lying on their side, so you need to rotate the part on its side before attaching. Try this: node_stack_right = 1.3, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 2 node_stack_left = -1.3, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 2 node_stack_back = 0, 0, 1.3, 0, 1, 0, 2 node_stack_front = 0, 0,-1.3, 0, 1, 0, 2 node_stack_top = 0, 1.3, 0, 0, 1, 0, 2 node_stack_bottom = 0,-1.3, 0, 0, 1, 0, 2 ...and see if that doesn't do what you want. Also note that when defining the orientation of a node, <0,1,0> and <0,-1,0> work the same. The game just cares about the axis, not the direction along it. It's definitely not the case that only two node_stack_xxx can be attachable, I've made parts with eight that were attachable before.

This sounds like a better approach anyway to me. Having a second star system to run interstellar missions to would be really cool, and if you replaced the existing Kerbol system instead of adding a system, you wouldn't get that. Looking forward to seeing this.

The fact that he knows more about the nuts and bolts here is why he's pointing out the false equivalency you're making because you don't understand the distinction in question. Most plugins are not derivative works, and neither are many parts mods, and although everything you posted is true with regards to mods that are derivative works, you continuously make the mistake of categorizing all KSP "mods" as if they are all of that type, when many are not. Properly speaking, many of the so-called "mods" are, in fact, not mods at all, they're more properly called plugins or addons, and just as Adobe cannot claim ownership of a Photoshop addon developed by someone else, Squad cannot claim ownership of addons not developed by themselves when they are not in any way, shape, or form a derivative work. Even attorneys are can be wrong, and often are when they speak on a subject without being fully acquainted with the facts, unlike Squad's attorney, who understands the situation and disagrees with you because of that. It's not a matter of special dispensation here, it's a matter of their attorney understanding the law as it applies in this case, and understanding the distinction you're failing to grasp when you throw two entirely different kinds of software together and treat them as one. Particulars do matter in the law, and you're either unaware of or are ignoring the relevant particulars here. You're the one treating oranges as apples here, and claiming laws about the handling of oranges also apply to apples in cases when, in fact, they do not. Wave your bona fides in the air all you want, better lawyers than you have already said differently. Not all "mods" are apples, and Majiir is indeed right that many mods are things Squad could not claim ownership rights for, any more than Microsoft can claim ownership of Windows version of iTunes because it runs on Windows. Same is true for Photoshop plugins, many of which are not in any way owned or claimable by Adobe, or the thousands of Java libraries and programs not in any way owned or claimable by Oracle, or the thousands of Windows programs not owned by Microsoft. Everything you say may very well be true of derivative works, but not all KSP plugings or parts are derivative works. You may know the law, but you obviously don't understand software, and are attempting to apply laws that cover one kind of thing to something entirely different.

What if the part already existed, so you didn't need to add a part, just fill it in? I'm thinking something like this inside the config file: PART { name = myPoodleClone } @PART[myPoodleClone]:CLONE[liquidEngine2-2] { @title = Not a poodle @mass = 2.0 } KSP itself processes the first PART definition, creating the part so-named. Then ModuleManager comes by, finds the definition to modify it with a CLONE command, copies all the variables from the original into the new part, and then executes any further tweaks specified. Completely unnecessary, since you could just copy the entire definition yourself if you really want to create a new part based on a current one, but... just a thought.

Actually, you're stating opinions. The existing adapter definitely fits 2.5m rockets, assuming you attach to the correct node. If you attach to the wrong one, there will be an air gap, but that's a user-error, not a problem with the mod. But I suspect you're not committing that error, but are instead arguing about the aesthetics of the slight size difference, which is, of course, an opinion. You think it looks bad, I think it looks good, other people agree with one or the other of us or fall somewhere in-between, but there's no fact of the matter on the subject. "It will be changed" or "it won't be changed" might be an appropriate response on the subject, but "it will be fixed" would be nonsensical, as there's nothing to be "fixed" in this case. You understand using the word "professional" in the manner you are above implies you've paid him for this work you're asking of him, right? Might I ask precisely how much money you've paid? Because it it's less than a few hundred dollars, in that context, your above comments make you sound like an entitled twit. Just stating facts... As a mod developer myself, understand that when I make a mod for my own use, and decide to share it with anyone who cares to download and use it, its under the notion that someone else might find it useful, but if they don't, no skin off my nose. I get no money either way, it's a free gift to you, and if you don't want it, that's fine by me. I'm sure cBBp feels the same. If you don't like it, don't use it. I can't speak for cBBp, but if your not using it means you stop posting extremely childish posts to this thread, then I'd actually hope you'd not use it. The money you didn't pay isn't worth putting up with the whining, nor the horribly wrong attitude that someone who you didn't pay any money for their free gift should be providing you with free, "professional" support. Still laughing that you actually used the word "professional" here for a hobbyist who gave you a free gift. That's pretty precious. Seriously, if you do want professional support, PM me. I get paid $40/hr for professional development work. Fixing the problems you cite shouldn't take more than a few hours. I'll get a contract prepared, and then we can both treat this like a professional transaction. If you aren't prepared to do that, then disabuse yourself of the notion that the hobbyist you're talking to who gave you a free gift is required to provide any level of professionalism or support merely because you downloaded it.

It definitely works with rocket parts and other ELP resources, once the appropriate additions to the config file are made. I've never used TACLS, but unless there's something particularly funky about how their resources work, there's no reason why it wouldn't work. All bets are off with Interstellar; that mod does so many utterly bizarre and funky things that I wouldn't dream of guessing... but you can certainly try and see.

No, you've got that backwards. Since weight is mass times gravity, weight could be displayed in newtons, but not mass. The SI unit for mass is the kilogram. You cannot display mass in newtons -- if you're talking newtons, you're talking about something other than mass.

I'm pretty sure 94kg = 94kg. Not sure where either 188 or 85.275366 is coming from here, but if Google thinks 94kg = 85.275366kg, something has gone terribly wrong with its conversion factors. MechJeb is showing "Vessel mass", which is identical on any body. If their mass is 94kg on the Mun, their weight is 94kg on Kerbin. Not sure about weight on the Mun, though.

Or 14.8 stones.

It is possible you've reversed your intended positions for the LV-T80 and the K1 Engine Base in the tech tree? It seems to me like you should get the former about the same time you get the Skipper, and the latter at the same time you get the 3.75m and 5m parts, rather than the other way around.

Lack posted a great picture showing kerbal scale. An 0.625m cockpit would actually be the perfect and most realistic size for a kerbal, assuming you're talking about something like an aircraft cockpit with a bubble canopy. Take a look at a human-piloted aircraft sometime, and note that in most small planes, it's not possible to stand up in the cockpit, you need to be seated to fit inside. They're not exactly spacious, especially on a fighter or single-seat light sports aircraft. A similar cockpit scaled to kerbal size would come in at under 625mm easily.

Yeah, it's not tweakable by default, for some reason. Seems like an oversight to me. Maybe it's intentional... but why? So you can't launch full kethane tanks, bypassing mining? The whole point of mining kethane is to prevent the need to ship fuel from Kerbin.

Not sure which config file you were thinking of futzing with, but it should be noted that there's a really easy fix for this problem that doesn't involved messing with the tanks' configs. Edit Kethane/Resources/Kethane.cfg, and in the RESOURCE_DEFINITION, just add "isTweakable = true". From that point forward, all kethane tanks work as normal, start empty as normal, but you can right-click and put some kethane in while building things in the VAB (and why not? You have limitless resources in the VAB normally, no reason why kethane should be any more limited than liquid fuel or monopropellant in this respect).

Not sure if I'll add "Dump Fuel", but if I do, it'll appear as a button in the "Pump Options" window, so you'll have to bring that up first. I don't want to clutter up the right-click menu any more than it already is with even more buttons. Four entries (level, pump, balance, and options) is already one more than I initially wanted there. I haven't tested it, but I'm pretty sure the options window doesn't move after it's opened (I open it next to the right click menu when it's first opened, but I don't update its position after opening I don't think, so it should hold still even if the right-click menu is moving).

Can you post a pic of the setup with the issue, with the right-click menus up? I haven't been able to replicate the problem.

Okay, version 2.14.1 is up. It fixes a problem with mods that change what a tank contains, such as Modular Fuel. It also has a sanity check that will hopefully stop it from pumping phantom fuel around should such situations occur. Hopefully this will fix the compatibility issues with those mods. Let me know... Yeah, for now you can remove the check in the config where it doesn't add the pump to command modules, so that you can set their level higher so they aren't "downhill" from your pumping monoprop tanks. I shall be adding a config variable to set the default level of parts that don't contain the pump soon. It is. The pumps are outgoing, not incoming, so only the tank that it sending the fuel needs its pump enabled, the receiving tank can have its pump off (or not contain a pump at all). You can. When I refer to "lower" tanks, I'm referring to the "Pump Level" setting on the right-click options. They can certainly be physically higher if you like. You set the order you want things to drain by setting the levels as desired. Highest level will drain first, regardless of where it is on the ship.

I considered having more than eight levels, but eight is the max number I can have and still be able to set the level I want to the exact number I want with a single click in the right spot on the bar. More than that, and I have to fumble with it like a slider to get the number I want as I can't quite judge exactly the right place to hit in a single click. I'll see if I can't make that configurable, though. And I'll see if I can't figure out what the issue is with Modular Fuels.

IIRC, there used to be a problem with a part like that where it would work fine for everything except rotating around its roll axis. It wouldn't roll because KSP couldn't figure out that it needed the same part to be firing in opposite directions along the same axis with only some of its RCS thrusters at the same time. (It has no problems firing multiple jets orthogonally at the same time, but opposite directions on the same axis on the same part, it could not do.) I don't know if that's still true in the latest versions...

Plugins modify the game itself in some manner. That's the traditional meaning of "mod" in the gaming sense. "Modifying stock parts" is a more KSP-specific notion. But let's not get into a "modlier than thou" discussion.

There are two Launchpad.dll's in the .zip, the correct one in the Plugins folder, and a spurious, zero-length DLL in the main folder. Delete the zero-length one.