BudgetHedgehog

@blackice504: I've never experienced that. Have you replicated it on a stock+RPM install? Also, please upload an output_log.txt/Player.log file - that will show what went wrong and what caused it (hopefully).

Well then, it would appear the problem isn't the parts, it's stocks awful souposphere.

Not sure what that would add - Toolbar already comes with a built in update-checker and notifies you in game if there's one available.

Ask Astronomer - he knows how to do it (or at least, he could in 0.24).

Sweet Jebus, thank god my internet came back today.. I was getting withdrawal symptoms from these excellent remodels.. Again, thanks for the superb work!

Does that take into account the entry cost? Because the actual part price was balanced for 0.24.2 (when they introduced the idea of actually purchasing things), the only thing that needed to be looked at was the entryCost i.e. the cost the tech tree shows. Some of those in 2.6c may be horribly unbalanced.. then again, stock isn't a great benchmark for balance.

I've been AFK fro a few days so apologies if this has already been addressed/fixed, but did you see my post about the Aero Vis bug on chutes? It wasn't on any dev build though, just the official version. I like the tint feature otherwise, it's a pretty cool little thing. EDIT: More testings show that reboarding after an EVA removes the tint.

As long as you delete the contents of KWRocketry folder and any patches you've downloaded for it since 0.25 dropped, it'll be fine.

I approve of/endorse this post/message/service.

And in game, you can transfer them with the new crew transfer system. Also bear in mind the description for the tiny legs says they're made of space-grade toothpicks and the huge wheels unveiling caused the company chairman to drop dead on the spot. Worth taking the part descriptions with a grain of salt, is all. EDIT: Also, when you spend an hour writing out personal opinions on textures, please don't get offended when people disagree with the majority of what you wrote. And that's what it is, a disagreement. No attacks, no offending, just 'I disagree with what you wrote and my opinions differ to yours' and that's fine - people can't agree on everything all the time. Who knows, maybe Ven will decided to go your route and muddy things up. We dont know and offering personal feedback is all we can do. But giving personal feedback and getting offended when people say 'I disagree with that' is something we should not do.

Lighten up, it's just people disagreeing you you. You have an opinion, others have theirs. No need to take offence. I for instance love the emissives on the docking ports and seeing how the 0.625 one not allowing crew transfer is something you yourself have decided, I think that's pretty irrelevant (again, no offence). Anyway, the KSP devs can think what they like, but as stated in the OP, this mod changes the stock textures, "hopefully making them more beautiful in the process". I don't see how dirtying up parts makes them more beautiful, that's all.

I have never agreed with a post so much on here before this one.

I had a quick flight earlier, didn't notice anything strange, all seemed to be working ok.

Yup, all buildings have different crash tolerances. The VAB is pretty strong, the flag pole.. not so much.

User personally changes the game, that breaks another mod, user complains at mod author that mod is broken. Makes sense. You'd have been better off setting their category to -1 and techRequired to none - they won't appear in the VAB or tech tree and you won't break other things like this.

I meant 'you' in the plural, addressing-everyone sense, not you specifically. Also, this is the first time I've seen you say you build stock only.

I'd like to volunteer - I like planes, especially ones that go to space. It'll be interesting to see how that body acts with FARs lifting body effects.

You want my input? OK: You should go and get the files you want from an old install or from the Addon Releases section and put them in your game. Then, rather than making 2 threads with heated complaints and demands that you'll stop playing KSP forever and tell your friends to not buy it (lol), request that Squad make them available as a Legacy pack via the bugtracker feature request section.

This thread, much like the other, is hilarious again. Also:

Yup, no problems with v3 so far.

I'm sorry, this thread is hilarious.

Little bug - the Aero Vis tint doesn't get removed from parachutes, they keep whatever tint they had last. (FAR 0.14.2, KSP 0.25) I like the tint feature otherwise, it's a pretty cool little thing. EDIT: More testings show that reboarding after an EVA removes the tint.

Navball scaling/sliding and manoeuvre node ghosting (I think ghosting looks better than an arrow, personally).

2 things - looking forward to a 0.25 update and have you contacted blackheart yet? His Stock Re-Texture Project is very similar in idea and execution, maybe you guys could collaborate or he does the textures, you do the models.. I only ask because both that pack and this are so well down, it's a shame I'll only be able to use one :/

Yeah, it just needs fleshing out. Cargo bays, more fuel tanks, various adapters.. right now, yeah, it's pretty useless. The one fuel tank doesn't hold oxidiser and there's only two other parts it can connect to sensibly.