BudgetHedgehog

Sorry, I missed this. The mods they target are bolded. Others.. well, rather unsurprisingly, BetterRoverMates.cfg targets the BetterRoveMates mod. If I said Agencia de Investigaciones Espaciales Suprema, you wouldn't be any wiser as to what mod that is because it's usually just called AIES. Most, if not all, the ones you're unsure about or ones I haven't spelled out can be found by Googling "ksp BananaForScale" or whatever. I'd link the mods, but again, googling them is sufficient.

Yes, that's intentional. You should bring some lights to light your ship if you want to see it. Or the mods settings you want to change are PlanetShine (specifically the vacuum light level in the settings.cfg).

Revert to 1.44 or 1.45 for now. 46 and 47 have a fair few glitches.

I guess as more of a trust thing than anything. If you received advice or saw a mod from someone with over 500 Rep, you can feel safe in the knowledge that it's a safe and reliable mod or correct advice, rather than something that could harm your saves/crafts. Also, it should be pretty obvious who actually is in the Light Green Group and who has cheated their way there. If you get someone that has barely made any posts or comments or even been active and still has more rep than say, sarbian or ferram4*, something'll look fishy. In other words, people with high Rep have likely earned it and it can be easily traced (popular mod, good comments, neat crafts etc). *or NathanKell or KasperVld or Kashua or Nertea or Ven or BahamutoD or sumghai or Padishar or cybutek or toadicus etc etc..

Something like this, maybe? Seeing as no-one has said the numbers are unbalanced, I'm going to assume I'm awesome and everything is perfect

I just wish Squad would change that damned fish-eye lens effect.. things look so weird and awful when they're not centered.. But anyway, hooray for keeping it alive! Looks interesting

Your problem is coming from HotRockets. You can delete the I think it's called Emissives folder in MP_Nazari to give it the stock texture back.

It's nothing to do with the parts, I'm guessing you have Fine Print installed. If so, it's a known issue with it and will be fixed for 0.90.0. Check your output_log.txt for this to confirm it: NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at FinePrint.Contracts.Parameters.AsteroidParameter.OnDock (FromToAction`2 action) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at EventData`1[GameEvents+FromToAction`2[Part,Part]].Fire (FromToAction`2 data) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Part.Couple (.Part tgtPart) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at ModuleGrappleNode.Grapple (.Part other, .Part dockerSide) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at ModuleGrappleNode.<SetupFSM>m__10 () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at KerbalFSM.RunEvent (.KFSMEvent evt) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at KerbalFSM.updateFSM (KFSMUpdateMode mode) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at KerbalFSM.FixedUpdateFSM () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at ModuleGrappleNode.FixedUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 I don't know if it can be fixed without cancelling the ARM mission though. Arsonide will have to weigh in with that.

Yeah, I like this. Or maybe even not tie the budget to rep at all - at the end of every month, all activity is taken into account (SoIs entered, orbits achieved, bodies landed on, recovery of vessels after X, Science from surface of Y etc. The game can already track the first instance of these, just make it track on a month-by-month basis as well) and budget awarded as appropriate. This has the added bonus of neither penalising nor rewarding inactivity (such as Jool transfer) - if you do nothing, you get nothing. Gotta keep them launches and explorations going if you want to keep the money rolling in. Course, you'd have to severely nerf or eliminate the cash payouts for contract rewards as otherwise, you'd quickly end up with more money than you know what to do with. It would depend on the contract though, I guess.. the Explore X contracts would have no cash reward (you use the budget to fund those), Science From X would have no cash reward.. survey contracts (on Kerbin at least) would be mainly cash reward though - no science or rep to be gained from exploring your own planet. Come to think of it, survey contracts everywhere would be mainly cash reward too - you already have Science contracts and Plant Flag contracts to get science and Rep. Part testing and Asteroid Wrangling should be a mix of all three, I think. Talking of Science contracts, only make it count if a non-zero amount of science is transmitted/recovered. Would stop the exploit of putting a thermometer on the Mun and saying 'yep, still pretty cold' every time someone asks. The game already knows how much science is available and where (see the Science Archives) - make contracts based on that rather than arbitrarily. Once all Science in the system has been gained, you're able to unlock the tree anyway so you don't need them any more (but you could still get Science from part tests). Strategies.. they'd be roughly the same as they are now, just a bit of rethinking/rewording needed. Or maybe they could be targeted to affect specific contract types, rather than globally? Globally would still be an option, though (see SKB for suitable examples). Like, make one give cash instead of Science for Science From X missions, under the guise of an agency wanting to know how cold Eeloo is for their own private needs. You give them the knowledge, they pay you for it. Just some ideas I had, is all.

1, I've said this to you before - it does exist. It's found in the following locations: Mac OS X: Open Console, on the left side of the window there is a menu that says 'files'. Scroll down the list and find the Unity drop down, under Unity there will be Player.log ( Files>~/Library/Logs>Unity>Player.log ) Linux: ~/.config/unity3d/Squad/Kerbal\ Space\ Program/Player.log There's no way to correctly and easily diagnose the problem without it. 2, being snarky towards the mod authors (who are the people you want help from) will not make them want to help you. Just sayin'.

Revert back to 1.44 and wait for 1.48. As for which configs go with which mods, the filename for the cfgs are pretty clear, although some use common abbreviations for mods (KW, NP etc for KW Rocketry and NovaPunch etc). Could I ask that one or both of you provide a full output_log.txt file? And can you confirm that you've tested this on an install with only TweakScale and ModuleManager present to confirm it's actually a TS bug?

I like these parts. I can't make anything that flies with them yet, but they look pretty. I just finished up a big mothership and it looked really awesome - only snag was it needed about 1.7 Saturn Vs to lift it to orbit. Or rather, it would've done had my game not crashed just as I was finishing up. One thing - I noticed a drop in FPS when certain parts are present - the big cargo bay, for instance. But yes, these are very nice, good stuff!

For optimal RAM usage and loading times. It says so in the OP.

One option is to zoom right in and disable node attachment. Make symmetry 2 and when the two CubOS' are in the same place, decrease symmetry and attach. You now have a perfectly central, angled CubOS. Takes 30 seconds at most.

Yeah, I don't see valid reasons behind the majority of these suggestions. The Aerospike is perfectly fine as it (it's dangerously close to OP as it is) and the RT-10... lolwat? You know it's one of the first parts in the game, right? And players with FAR and/or DRE are going to lower the thrust anyway.. And you know the O-10 is physicsless anyway, right? Increasing its mass won't do anything as it already has an infinite TWR. Stick as many as you like on your shuttle, it ain't going to be any heavier. That's the imbalance. Cost/tech tree changes aren't going to make any difference in sandbox and a rebalance should balance engines against each other, not the players progress. ATM, the NERVA is fine - yeah, it's the go-to long-range vacuum engine, but it's heavy and unwieldy as well. However, I do like the idea of separating out the 4 nozzle NASA engine (seriously, why do they all have such forgettable names?) My only worry would be part count though. Either that or a new angled engine with high gimbal with around the 400kn thrust range (who am I kidding, just make KM SSE stock already..).

Ooh, nice update! Thanks!

What do you you can't choose the dimensions? As Malah said, they're available in the tweakable menu in the editor, but if you mean the option to resize them is gone (big hole in the tweakable menu), then another mod with KSPAPIExtensions is interfering and should be updated.

Likely running out of memory, but I'll need the output log to be sure. Please refer to the How To Get Support sticky for where to find it

I understand that, but as I said, what they're releasing is incomplete (it's just missing like 1, maybe 2, parts) and that doesn't make sense to me. It's like making 5m engines and adapters, but no fuel tanks. Great, and what can I do with these? Make slightly different shaped rockets? Uhh, ok then. Bit weird, but whatever. Same with these - what can I do? Make bigger spaceplanes? Ok, well, can I do anything with them except fly them? No, not really, they're just there if you want to use them. If you want to take cargo or anything other than 16 kerbals, you'll need to strap it to the front or use the Mk2 bays. Regarding QA etc - I apologise, I was under the impression they were paid. Still though, my point remains - I didn't buy the game to bug test it, I bought the game to play it. If I'm going to bug test it, I want to be given a version to test, not one that's released to the entire world. I know it's early access, I know there will be bugs, but it is not on me to find and report them. Sure, I will if I come across any, but I shouldn't (and don't) have to. But that is a different discussion and veering off-topic. I know the EULA and ToS and that Squad are fully within their right to release incomplete content/features (hell, nothing stopping them releasing just the Mk3 cockpit and saying 'what you gonna do about it?'), what I'm saying that you appear to be misunderstanding is that the current Mk3 lineup is 99% complete and the remaining 1% makes the 99% a whole lot more useful and may miss the release by a week or less. It doesn't make sense to me that this could be a thing - Squad sets the release dates themselves! There is literally zero harm in pushing back the release by a few days to a week so they can be included and make a fully complete set (for the first time in KSP history..). Anyway, I've said all I need to say. I'm bowing out of this before it gets too heated or off-topic. Night, everyone.

Uh, yeah, that's what I said.. I'm fully aware that another mod is breaking them, but it only breaks KWR ones, not pFairings, not stock decouplers, just KWR - and that's because they use a negative ejection force. If I did not have whatever mod is breaking them, I too would not have a problem.

Why even bother releasing Mk3 parts in 0.90 at all then? It's just content, after all. Same with the extra biomes and all other stuff that's just content. Whether Mk3 parts should be in 0.90 is a different discussion - the fact is that they are, but it's incomplete. That just doesn't make sense to me. EDIT: Also, I am not telling them to rush. Pretty much the opposite, actually - I'm saying 'take your time, delay the release if you need to because at the moment, you're going to include an incomplete set'. Great, so why even have QA and Experimentals then.. sure, I'll do their job, except for free (in fact, I've even paid to do it), and the fix won't come for another 3 months or so. Gotcha.

You lost me at 'axis' and only got me back at 'smooth'. It's times like this when I wonder if I'm a bit too simple for FAR..

I could be wrong, but it's not the players job to find bugs and fill out bug reports. That's the QA/Experimentals teams jobs and, like I said, if they hold off on the release, that gives the people whose job it is to find bugs and test things more time to do that. You seem to have your sentence a little wrong, here, I'll correct it for you: I don't think it's ridiculous to slightly hold back a release for a part that, as you said, is really cool and will open up a large amount of new opportunities. As it stands right now, the harsh truth is that the only thing I would be able to take up to LKO with the new Mk3 parts is a boatload of kerbals. I could do that with Mk2 cargo bays and command seats right now. In terms of usefullness, the current line up doesn't add a lot.

1, Fair enough. It just seems to mess with other things that target decouplers (TweakableEverything and Claws Bug Fixes are two that spring to mind) so making them positive would mean more compatibility with other things, but otherwise, yeah, it ain't broke. 2, Oh, so I can attach payloads to it? Guh.. the amount of times I've had to add on an extra layer of fairings because my payload was just that little bit too tall... Thanks for the reply

No, the front of the cockpit is 1.25m. This is a good size comparison: Still though, yeah, they're pretty darn big.