BudgetHedgehog

Which is why, in my opinion, they're worse than KW fairings. I want and like the challenge of fitting payloads into a specific space and I prefer the look of KWR fairings anyway. PFairings just seems a little cheaty to me.. like *pfwoomp* you're shielded! There's no challenge, there's no creativity involved. Just make a payload of any size and there's nothing to worry about ever. That said, there are times when the KWR fairings are juuuuuust a shade too small and frankly, the interstages from pFairings are more useful anyway so for just those reasons, I usually have it installed. It's a wonderful mod, a marvel of programming, but it's not one I personally enjoy.

Save that text as whateveryouwant.cfg - ModuleManager will grab the drone core, make a copy of it and apply the listed changes (name, title, category, weight, cost, PartModule etc) to the copy. it'll help if you save the cfg somewhere in Gamedata that you can find it again if needs be - either in the same folder as the drone core, or a personal folder of your own. No problems should arise as this is an addition (not a replacement/deletion) to the drone core - it just references it for the model and texture, same as Hejnfelt's (and my) other additions. Buuuuuut seeing as Hejnfelt already has an SAS unit, unless you remove something, you're going to end up with two. I haven't actually downloaded Hejnfelt's pack yet, but if it's a separate cfg, either delete that or delete the Reaction Wheel section from this text.

Again?! I haven't even upgraded to the previous version because there were a few outstanding contracts I wanted to complete but real life was against me (hooray for 60-hour work weeks...) but if I had upgraded, I'd need another contract wipe? Wow.. Is this going to be a regular thing? Fair enough, it's your mod, after all. I've given my feedback on it, I still have it installed and will likely keep it installed because hey, more contracts.. But yeah, your mod, you decide what to do. Just a side note: I don't mean to come across as arrogant or anything, that's not the intention. I'm just writing stuff and it isn't really being passed through a filter because that part of my brain isn't working right today, it seems. Had to give interviews and I swear to god, my mouth was on autopilot...

Please, I implore you.. rethink this. Those are god-awful. Keosynchronous etc, I can (almost) stand that - I'd prefer Kerbosynchronous ("Geo-" refers to "land, earth" etc and is Ancient Greek (from Gaia, the embodiment of Earth)). Unless you're suggesting Kerbals had a similar language and history to the Greeks, "Keo-" makes no sense. "Kerbo-" makes more sense because it at least sounds like it come from the word "Kerbin", which is where "Geo-" comes from - Gaia. I could go on and on about the "K-Syndrome" and how much I really dislike it, but pls.. no keliostationary.. Kolniya is fine, by the way. Molniya was named after a certain set of satellites, it's pretty difficult to come up with a completely random name and hope people understand you mean Molniya, so yeah, whatever, Kolniya.. but jeez, keliosynchronous.. Just synchronous and stationary do fine..

FloorIt, SelectRoot, EditorExtensions, Enhanced Navball, Aligned Currency Indicator, Diazo's Landing Height (the surface altitude plugin OP wanted), FinePrint, Stock Rebalance Project, DecoupleForX64, MusicPauser, TweakableEverything, SurfaceNodes, RLA Stockalike and Kerbal Flight Indicators (or NavHud). Al those mods either fix Squads oversight, add in really useful things that it's a wonder they aren't in the game to begin with, or just extend stock gameplay (like Fine Print adding in extra contracts).

Two things: 1, Kottabos did a review of this: 2, That's why I'm here. To download this amazing thing that I so need right now gimme!

Doesn't necessarily mean Earth, but mostly does. And aereostationary orbit refers to a stationary orbit around Mars, so yeah, Geo- is pretyt much Earth. As for replacements, either make it unique for all bodies (Moho-, Evo-, Gilo-, Kerbo-, Muno-, Minmo-, Duno-, Iko-, Dreo-, Joovo-, Polo-, Boppo-, Laytho-, Tylo-, Eelo- or whatever), replace it with just 'stationary orbit' (though that might cause confusion with people thinking the vessel, not the orbit, should be stationary), or keep geostationary as people know what it wants to mean, even if it's not technically correct (like calling the Space Shuttle orbiter just 'the Space Shuttle').

Yeesh, sorry man, never actually got round to testing that dll. I rarely get time to actually play KSP nowadays and in my main save, I hyperedited in a replacement probe (exactly the same parts and mods installed) and it worked fine without changing the dll. I guess the save or the craft was borked in some way.. either way, I really appreciate the time you took to help and offer a solution, I just wish I had time to help you as well Thanks for the update as well.

Yeah, currently, attaching docking ports to robotic parts doesn't work. Or at least, mostly doesn't. It's a known issue but no real workaround. Best you could is using KAS instead.

Conflicting versions of KAE - update all mods that include it.

Well, it does have an atmosphere of like, what.. 0.2 of Kerbin? That's really not that much. It's a thin atmosphere, it's never going to slow you down as much as Kerbins or Eves. Honestly, the examples you're providing are easily avoidable - are you heading directly towards the centre of the planet at a ridiculous speed? Then burn slight radially when far away for not a lot of fuel and to push your PE out to a sensible height. You're essentially saying 'I want to slam full on into the atmosphere at Mach 220. Squad, make it so I don't crash'. How about you just.. don't do that and re-enter normally using correct aerobraking and orbital manoeuvres? I don't understand your example about Eve - it's in a slightly lower orbit than Kerbin so a correct Hohmann Transfer would leave you with very little relative velocity to Kerbin. Even coming from Moho would leave you with even less - you're meeting Kerbin at your solar Ap, when you're travelling slowest. If you still have 8km/s relative speed, you've done something wrong. If you decide to slam head on into the atmosphere at that speed, then you frankly deserve everything that comes to you. That is an insane entry speed and slowing down to like 300m/s at 10,000m just seems so weird. Realism vs believability again - I don't care if it's not realistic, it sure as heck ain't believable which means that, in my eyes, it's not something that needs 'fixing' (even though it's not broke, but hey ho).

So one thing that has annoyed me since literally forever is the 2.5m Rockomax Decoupler. It's just so darn big for what it is. Here are some pictures that explain my thoughts: It's almost half the height of the Rockomax 16 fuel tank. I mean, seriously.. Putting that on a relatively small lander or something can almost double its height. Why must this be so? Looking at the thing and comparing it to the other decouplers, it should be about as big as from the bottom light rim to the top right rim or roughly half as big as it is now. There's just no sense in it being so darn tall.. Yeah, I guess you can hide things like monoprop tanks and batteries inside it but you wouldn't need to if those things weren't so darn big to begin with as well. I've taken to using KWR's 2.5 decouplers because they're a sensible height and still look nice. Aesthetics aside, I know a lot of people have trouble with landing - having such a tall object pushes the CoM higher which makes toppling more likely. Yeah, you could always just not have it but some people also like to play realistically, even if they're not forced to. That and the Mk1-2 ladder position doesn't allow for many useful parachute attachments so you have to use either a lot (which adds weight and cost) and not enough (to slow the pod, tank and engine down to safe landing speed). My suggestion? Make the decoupler like half as tall. Preferably less, like 1/3 as tall. As it is, it looks too big, too tall and just plain ridiculous. Make it shorter please Squad

That's more of a bug with FAR than anything. I have heard of issues of FAR not calculating drag correctly on vessel load, but whenever you lose/decouple parts from it, it recalculates drag so TL;DR put launch stability enhancers on and see if they help.

Yes. I've done so - here is the cfg I used: PART { name = mk2Decoupler module = Part author = Porkjet mesh = model.mu rescaleFactor = 1 node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.125, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0 node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.125, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0 TechRequired = supersonicFlight entryCost = 1200 cost = 400 category = Structural subcategory = 0 title = MK2 Decoupler manufacturer = Lockspeed Kerman description = A decoupler designed to fit around the Mk2 shape fuselage. Handy for aborts! attachRules = 1,0,1,1,0 mass = 0.08 dragModelType = default maximum_drag = 0.2 minimum_drag = 0.2 angularDrag = 2 crashTolerance = 9 maxTemp = 3400 fuelCrossFeed = False stageOffset = 1 childStageOffset = 1 MODULE { name = ModuleDecouple ejectionForce = 250 explosiveNodeID = top } It's unlocked at the same node the first node with Mk2 parts in, I think. You can change obviously change it yourself if you want. Oh, and I put this cfg in the same folder as the drone core and called it partD.cfg to distinguish it from the drone core part.cfg.

Could be, but you might then run into trouble when you accept a contract to test part X, then rescale it. I don't know if KSP will like PartModules being removed on the fly, especially if part X is needed for a contract (it might think 'I have a contract to test part X, but part X doesn't allow itself to be tested. I'm going to throw some NREs and crash now'). I don't know how TweakScale could handle this cheaty route.. It might prove impossible to have a working solution, but I question its usefulness when the time could be saved by people just not rescaling parts. Just my two cents.

Either make sure you have the latest version (clean reinstall) or delete the SP+FAR.cfg from the folder (or SP+NEAR/DRE, whatever.. whichever mods you don't have, delete them). I'd recommend a re-download and clean reinstall first though.

I don't know if it can be.. As long as the part is the designated thing, KSP don't care what size it is. You could see if it's possible to look at current contracts, see what parts are due for testing and prevent tweaking on them.. not the prettiest workaround, but for now, I think the best workaround for being able to tweak parts for testing is to just not do it. Self-control, y'all.

Never been to the (solid) surface of any of Jools moons (splashed down on Laythe though). I've only orbited them once or twice as well.. I mostly only play career and usually, by the time I've arrive at Jool, I've grinded all the available science at Minmus etc and completed the tech tree. And when that happens, I get bored and start a new save so yeah.. That means I've only ever had one or two flybys of Jools moons in the 8 months I've had this game. I should really change that.. :/

I agree (with OP). Also, so do these people. You're not the first to want this, basically EDIT: True, but when reading the contract, it's much easier to see a picture and say 'ohh, that little orange radial engine!' rather than building a rocket and then trying to find the "Rockomax 24-77", whatever that is.

Haha That Rokolite adapter looks pretty sweet! Excellent idea and nice integration with the stock textures. Downloaded just for that

Was the download updated to include the engine fairings or not? Just wondering as it's been a few weeks since the last update.

Someone was working on a plugin that actually mirrored flaps and stuff, not just flipped them. That would solve this.. Can't remember for the life of me who, though :/

Ehh, they work, but don't fit in with 0.24.2 KSP, in my opinion. 0.18 or so, yes - the graphics fit, the general textures blend well with that era, but 0.24.2 is more polished and just better-looking. Nazari's Refit is both working and well-suited to current KSP standards WRT textures/graphics. Don't get me wrong, TT did some excellent work and I've made his Mk3 IVA apply to Nazaris but his Mk3 expansion pack just looks so out of place with everything else, much like the current Mk series parts. But seeing as bac9 managed to pull of the S2 line with little to no complaints, I wouldn't be adverse to PJ doing the same to Mk3. I'd question the point of it, as Nazari is working on that exact thing (key words: 'working' and 'on'), but I wouldn't mind it at all.

Well then.. Someone wanted some better-than-stock Mk3 parts, I link a promising (and current) refit/expansion and am met with a resounding 'eh, I don't want that, I want Porkjet to do what he said he doesn't want to do'. Screw the lot of ya, then.

No, I got it too.. It seems as if the Github ReadMe has been updated with references to v8.0 and dev v9.0, but that they're actually nowhere to be found.. :/