BudgetHedgehog

I miss Stock Rebalance Project :/

Found it! Thanks for the clue, I kinda like the KW interstages and I like Vens Revamp engines more than KWR ones (heresy, I know).

Do you have an engineer or flight chip on the craft? KER requires one of them (or to be run in partless mode) for it to appear in flight.

I believe that's due to using a stock engine instead of KWR one - KW engines have an extra node on the top that you attach the interstage to, while stock ones do not. This means that attaching the top node to a stock engine as you're supposed to (which you must enable part clipping in order to do as the stock engine top node is already attached to the fuel tank) means that the interstage top decouple node separates the engine and fuel tank and the engine can no longer reach the fuel as it has been 'decoupled' according the the game, even though it's still attached (which is why KER reports that the stage isn't present - because it's not). There's only one node between stock engines and fuel tanks and the interstage top node decouples it. Basically, the interstages can only properly be used with KWR engines. I just comment out the top attach node on the interstages and attach stuff to the bottom payload node instead. Hope this helps.

Quoted verbatum from /u/d4rch0n on Reddit. I do agree with it entirely and I would love for contracts to be related to each other rather than being "do this! Now do this completely unrelated thing!" and seeing as they're the only source of income in career, it'd be nice if they actually added to the gameplay, rather than being just a requirement for it. Even if you just add on to crew ferrying contracts, it becomes a whole lot more immersive. "Do a crew swap on Station [stationname]" or "a VIP wants to visit [stationname] for a few days. Take him there and bring him back in 5 days time" or [kerbal] has gotten sick/bored in [stationname]. Bring them back home safely" or whatever... I mean, I get the satellite contracts, a company wants to have one there and it's none of my business afterwards, I'm ok with that. But I'd like for their to be satellite contracts that I, as a runner of space program, can use - bring in map scanning, or orbital science parts, or some kind of communication relay needed etc. Anyway, this is the reddit post: "I love the new missions, like create a surface outpost on Minmus, but I definitely think there's a ton of room for improvement here. My main criticism is that you drop them and forget about them... and even by the mission goals, it has to be "a new outpost developed for the agency". It's sort of depressing. I put a lot of heart and soul into building something that looks pretty, and then I drop it on the Mun and I never hear from them again, apart from maybe the "Place a flag on the Mun" missions that I can complete for free. Anything else I want to do with the outpost is akin to sandbox mode, and thus a waste of money that could be spent upgrading buildings. Why can't we have a continual progression of things we build? Why do we send satellites and stations in orbit, then forget about them? Imagine an ISS that you initially place a cupola module, power, antennae and 4 kerbal living spaces. Suddenly, that opens up a tree of missions where you can deploy the science module with a lab, or the power module, that has can provide X electricity per second with solar panels, or the habitat module that can house 16 kerbals. Maybe I need to first get adequate satellite coverage before I can build the station. And the new modules must go towards the station you just created. Missions are linked together. That means you need to rendezvous and think about things from the very beginning. Any oversight from a previous mission (docking port placed strangely) means that you have just that much more difficulty in placing the rest of the modules together. After you place the power module, maybe that opens up the science module with all the science parts. Maybe finally you need to attach a rocket module and send the thing into Mun orbit! And if you do, that creates a whole tree of things to do there. You could choose the Mun, or Minmus, or Duna and the missions related to that space station change appropriately. I'd like a mission that says I need to get a rover to the station, pick up the pilot of the station, then bring him down to the Mun and ride around. I want a connection between my missions and the kerbals that completed them. I think that is what I feel is mostly missing from career mode right now. There's no story. Missions which continuously evolve depending on decisions you make would create a story. Instead of a story, it's literally a checklist. Maybe the entire framework of career mode isn't best suited to continuous progression and linking to specific ships that you've built and kerbals that piloted them, but this is how I'd want to play the game. I want to complete the ISS tree of missions and be able to look at this huge lopsided thing that took me days to finish. I want to be able to tell a story about a string of missions I've finished, rather than check a bunch of checkboxes and say "Okay, I just got 5 kerbals on wheels on the Mun, now I'm going to send a new satellite in a polar orbit of Duna." It's more like a scavenger hunt than a space program, and sometimes they can be extremely tedious (get a crew report from point MOL-X2 on the surface, ADR-04 flying above 10,200 meters...). I have to say it again: I love the new changes that were brought in. I just think that a lot more could be done with it."

It's common courtesy to list which mods are needed to load crafts when you post them. I see Novapunch, mechJeb AR202, light.beacon, and that's just a cursory skim over the file.

Nope, I'm using both with no problem. I'll try that craft you posted later in tonight.

Did you see this pic earlier in the thread?

No and I can't help you more without either a craft or preferably, an output_log.txt. It's standard practice for wanting help with mod issues.

Nah, performance isn't affected, just aesthetics. To avoid it in the future, avoid making anything Mk1 that isn't a command pod the root part. Or install those fixes I linked, either's good.

There's no reason to keep 2.5.1, mainly because it deactivates itself upon detection of a newer version - you can delete MM 2.5.1 for both a short term and long term solution. Renaming a dll will cause Very Bad Things to happen.

My thoughts: Mk1-2 pod is slightly too heavy. Reduce to maybe 3.5 tons or something (although the Apollo capsule weighed over 5 tons, if you strip out everything that the Mk1-2 pod doesn't have (RCS engines, heatshield, communications, provisions etc), it weighs about 2 tons) Mk3 cockpit is ridiculously lightweight. Should be over 4.5 tons at least. I'm conflicted on the Cupola.. on one hand, it's way too light for something made mainly of windows, but on the other, it was too heavy beforehand. Again, make it 3.something tons. Yeah, it's the heaviest 1 man pod, but it's the least capable 2.5m stack pod (even then, it looks awful with anything stacked on top of it, from both exterior and interior view).

That's a little unclear - what do you mean by modules? If the new whatevers don't have this issue, what's the problem then? If you did a clean reinstall, there would be no old and new KWR parts in the same install in KSP. Anyway, to better diagnose your problem: 1, what version of KSP are you running what version of KWR on where the scaling bug is present? 2, if KWR 2.6d2 on KSP 0.90, would you kindly upload a craft file of a craft where this scaling down occurs? After checking that you're not using the engine as the root part, of course.

From the OP: Said save file tweaking can consist of many things - the most fun being installing ChopIt! and detaching the KER parts before upgrading. Another slightly more complicated and involved method is outlined here.

Yep, it's a stock bug related to rescaling parts that are the root part. There's a fix in the forums around, gimme a minute, I'll find it for you. There's no stock fix you can do once the craft is in flight (you'll need to add ModuleManager and 1 cfg to fix it), but you know how that Mk1 fuel tank is your root part? The best workaround is for you to not do that. EDIT: So, here's that StockScalingBugFix I was on about. Which reminds me, I need to check if I still have that in 0.90..

If they do any of those options and fall flat on their own aerodynamics, it will be the biggest mistake Squad makes in the entirety of KSP. I can't help shake the nagging feeling that the overhaul will be to NEAR what NEAR is to FAR - better than stock but way worse than it should be. If you're not on the experimentals/QA team, you should be. Say to them 'look, I know my stuff. Don't do it that way, do this instead. Trust me. Yes, it's a big leap of faith, but I have tens of thousands of players who use FAR and that shows what they want from an aerodynamics model. If you're going to do it, do it right, or at least don't mess it up so much that I can't fix it'. It would behoove Squad to pay attention to whatever advice you give about the aerodynamics, that's for sure.

When it does, download the SPP configs from nli2work here

Download the 0.90 patch by MOARdv here.

From the changelog in the OP:

Probe core (or command pod if you're evil), solar panels, some way of propulsion and a scanner of your choice. Put it into orbit using whatever method you feel most comfortable with (make sure the altitude is below the scanners listed max height and above its minimum). Right click on scanner and start scanning.

So these ancient anomalies.. are they something that could be detected by SCANsat? I'd love to go and see some, but I've no idea where to start looking...

So, once we've unlocked higher level probes and not before, we can then use lower level level ones but upgrade them to the higher level ones? That sounds.. pretty neat, actually. Will be fun to see it in practice.

It's available in the OP. The 0.25 version works fine in 0.90, no need for an update.

How do things work with regards to "Requiring an Engineer Kerbal of any level, or placement of an Engineer Chip or ER-7500 part" if an MM config adds the Engineer Module to all Command pods? Is it the same as placing a chip down?

Ah yes, I see. Thanks for the update, info and for making aerostaging more exciting!