BudgetHedgehog

AFAIK, cloud shadows are planned/implemented in the EVE Overhaul.

Good stuff, thanks for doing this!

Not yet, which is why I hadn't said anything until now; I haven't had the chance to properly test it.

I was under the impression KerbalStuff automatically creates a CKAN file using information entered about the mod when uploading it.

I've noticed that when I set transfer alarms at the main KSC screen. Set them up, go do whatever, quit the game, come back, they're not saved. I thought I was going crazy, thinking 'I coulda sworn I set those alarms..'

1, Linux uses OpenGL 2, Read the OP.

Most of the time, I just say AP and PE.

Now that's a pretty planet...

CoMOffset = 0, 0, -0.5 Note sure what directions those are, but I'm guessing X, Y and Z offset. EDIT: or at least, that used to work 8 months ago. No idea if it still does now.

Just a guess, but does your space station contain parts that, in 0.90, lacked an IVA and now in 1.0, have one? Like, the Mk2/3 crew cabin or mobile processing lab etc? Because the second link you provided says changing INTERNALs of previously-launched vessels produces this error - adding an IVA could be classed as changing its INTERNAL.. EDIT: Also, what with the many and wide-sweeping changes to the game 1.0.X brought, it's probably best to start anew anyway as all crafts will behave differently, parts have different stats etc.

To be clear, this is a stock KSP issue, not a user-induced one. It's due to Squad resizing the small reaction wheel (the one in the craft used to 1.25m, not 0.625m) a few versions ago, but not updating the scenario and craft used therein - it still references the part named 'sasModule' which is the tiny one and not the 'advSasModule' which is the 1.25m one. The parts either side are spaced out because that's where they were when the RW was larger and, due to not updating the craft, that's where they remain. The legs though, I've no idea. Could be a similar problem and the craft just needs to be updated (by Squad).

Probably. Though without details on what specific steps you took, it's difficult to say which one you missed. Did you download the most recent versions? Where in Gamedata did you put them? What contract packs were they? Some require specific tech nodes to appear - have you unlocked those nodes? Have you read and followed the sticky on how to get support (hint: no, you haven't).

Correct - the station should load with no errors. However, it uses a part that will likely not be in the next release of FT+ so it's best to save them sooner rather than later.

Custom Barn Kit?

Hooj, you should call it Lang

Axes (/ˈæk siz/, rhymes with taxis)

Probably because it's not an official release, it's a dev build.

That's a stock bug.

Peas and rice, I'd underestimated the size of the MkIV-2... that's bloody gigantic!

The problem was posted on the last page and the solution provided at the top of this one.

Replace. Those are some pretty models! I do question the use of the fans in front - wouldn't they normally be hidden from view? Attach a fuel tank in front and you can't see them..

There are few people I have little respect for. Among these are: People who update mods with no backup saves (seriously, it doesn't take 30 seconds to copypaste a savefile. It should be habit to do so every time you quit KSP) People who don't read mod update news ("ooh an update! I don't need to know what's new at all, just install whatever you want into my Gamedata!") People who install a mod (either via the CKAN or manually) and don't subscribe to the forum thread. In short - catering for everyone leaves everyone dissatisfied. Save-breaking updates to mods happen often and as long as you give sufficient notice and warning that if you install this update, existing vessels may break, there's not a lot you can do. People don't read things and are stupid - cater to this as best you can, but don't compromise on quality in the process. Another option is to include a 'Deprecated' folder that has the parts, but not in the tech tree or editor list so old vessels still load but new vessels use the current parts (B9 did this for R5). Again, make a note that keeping the Deprecated folder around increases memory usage and will be removed in the next update (include an additional README in the folder that says this if you want, but again, people don't read things). If, despite all the warnings and information available weeks in advance, people still complain that an update broke saves, there's really not a lot you could have done. As long as you can say 'well, I did say this update would break saves, like, a month ago here', they don't really have any kind of argument. Then again, I'm terribly cynical, so meh.

IIRC, SRBs having thrust when thrust limited to 0 is intentional - in reality, no SRB can be limited down that far, you either have lots of power or huge amounts of power. MJ and KER were also tweaked to account for this 0=50% thing (though, that appears to have changed).

It doesn't, those are two separate things. The air density difference has a much bigger effect when parachuting because you're not piloting the craft, you're removing quite a large variable. The original question was 'given that air density affects parachutes, does it also affect ascent?' - the answer is yes, of course, but during ascent, your piloting has a much bigger effect on ÃŽâ€V requirements than air density.

Also, KW Rocketry already uses dds textures... EDIT: and the dev builds of FusTek and B9