vosechu

In this case I would accept nadir bringing us a sample of someone in the office attempting the challenge. But I agree, this is an existing thing and should at least try to comply with the challenge subforum rules or the reddit challenge rules. Proof that it's possible is a really important part; there are faaaar too many challenges that just aren't possible and with sticky permissions your challenges better be top notch. Highlighting challenges from the challenges subforum would also be a good way to go (and much easier!). No need to take away from their efforts to make your own thing.

Works great for me.

@DualDesertEagle have you considered a two wheel variant like the U-2? Might save a little weight! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2

My concern is not the OP, it's the two full pages of arguments that keep me from reading about awesome attempts. Anyways, I'm unsubscribing from this thread regardless.

Do you mind reposting this challenge with the new rules in place? There aren't many entries, so maybe a rewind now that the rules are discovered might be helpful.

Oh, Jesus, I'm not sure how that quote even got used. I was trying to quote the thing about MM being delisted from ckan. Sorry, your confusion totally makes sense now. I wonder if I can still edit that old post? I'll try that. What I was trying to say was that since MM has been delisted (according to GitHub at least), I wanted to see if all of my mods broke because they couldn't find their dep. That's what I meant by trying it before worrying. I was able to edit my old post, so hopefully that will prevent future confusion. Really sorry about that!

Let me try it out before worrying.

@sarbian I would like to know why you would like to delist in ckan as well. This might break all of my mods. I don't want to go back to the days when every mod had a different copy of MM in it. I don't know the history of the request and it's not listed in the PR, so maybe there's another way? If you have an install that just contains this mod (which it seems like every modern has a tuned copy of ksp with only QuickStart and a couple other mods), the cache shouldn't be too rough to split up. It will still be arranged by PART, but you will lose commentary. But as far as I know, no, there's no cli version of MM that would do this (but if there is I _really_ want to know!)

If your goal for he game is to learn new things, perhaps you've learned this lesson and it's time to move on to other contracts. I'd say you earned the money. If you hit alt+f12, you'll find a dialog that has lots of debug info. Somewhere in there is a contracts tab, go ahead and mark the contract completed. You deserve it for nailing that orbit so dead on (even if it was going the wrong way). Enjoy the game! Welcome!

I'm by no means an authority on this, but I have not seen any ability to do this as stated. MechJeb does something like this, but the patch it uses seems to change some internal variables at the different unlock levels and perhaps internally is hiding the extra parts that it adds at the different unlock levels? It might also be interesting to look at how the various tech tree mods do this like CTT. Sorry I'm not able to give better assistance! It's an intriguing problem and I hope you find a way to do it! I would love to know how to as well.

Just spitballing here, is there anything that could be done with load order? Like, could I force Squad parts to load first, then apply my patch to all parts in an `:AFTER[Squad]`, then load the rest of the mods?

Shoot, I realize that one thing I didn't mention is that KSP actually refuses to let me launch if I have one of these parts hidden in my craft. It's still loadable because I didn't delete the models, but it's not visible in the editor and if I try to launch KSP will tell me that I have an unresearched part. I found that I was often missing a stray communotron32 or AR202 hidden somewhere in some science bay tucked out of the way. Also, this tells me from the loading dialog whether there are parts that I need to fix to make my crafts stock compatible. Very nice during upgrade season.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I did. One nice thing about having the mod installed but not showing it is that it won't deorbit my craft that I haven't been able to update; I just won't send up new craft with that particular problem. In the end I did this, but VSR isn't the only one I want to do this to, I'd like to find a way to make it generic: // Disable the new Vens Stock Revamp parts. @PART[1x3SPanels|1x3WPanels|45DegreeRCS|Angledpanel|basicCanard|CryoXBig|CryoXendButt|CryoXmed|CryoXnoseCone|CryoXsmall|fuelTank1-5|HeatShield0|HeavyRcs|InflatableHAB|InlineRCS|KerbCan|largeFixedAntenna|LargeInflatableHAB|LargeOMS|largeTrussMount|LGLadderUtility|LongDeployableAntenna|LongLadder|LVT15|mediumFixedAntenna|MedLadder|MedLadderUtility|MicroEngineB|microIbeam|MicroInflatableHAB|MK1Cargobay|MK1LFOFuselage|MK2VApod|OCTOs0Adapter|OCTOServiceBay|OCTOTank|OscarAtank|OscarDtank|OscarEtank|parachuteRadial_Drogue|parachuteSingle_drogue|ParaDockingPort|PoodleM|RadialavionicsHub|RadialLF|RadialLFLong|RadialLFO|RadialLFOLong|RadialMonoMini|RadialReactionWheel|rtgMini|ShieldCapLarge|shortDecoupler1-2|size0PulseJet|size2nuclearEngine|size3ReactionWheel|SmallFixedAntenna|SmallInflatableHAB|smallISRU|SmallPointLight|smallRadialDecoupler|SmallSpotLight|SmallStripLight|SMLadderUtility|SnubOtron|softTankMK1|softTankMK2|softTankMK3|softTankMK4|softTankMK5|strutCube3way|strutCube90|strutCubeLarge|strutCubeMedium|strutCubeMountingPlate|strutCubeOCTOAdapter|strutCubeS0Adapter|strutCubeSmall]:NEEDS[VenStockRevamp]:AFTER[VenStockRevamp] { @TechRequired = Unresearcheable @category = none }

I've been hunting around for about 2 hours and not making much headway, maybe this is impossible, but any advice would be recommended. I've been trying to make a patch that would warn me if I'm using any non-stock parts (or just hide them in the editor). Ven's wonderful VensStockRevamp makes my stock parts way more beautiful, but it adds a lot of parts and in this last upgrade it bit me until Ven's was back up and running on 1.1. So I created a dumb patch that hides all the VSR created parts. But then I started thinking about other mods that do this, MechJeb, KER, etc. It got me thinking about whether I could hide anything which doesn't have the assembly name of Squad. Alternatively, I would love to add a bit in the description about which assembly a part came from. I thought about using Author, but Porkjet is one example of a Stock author who also mods (and there are others). I've been hunting for a while, but there's nothing special about the squad PartConfig files, and I can't find anything in the KSPAPI that would allow me to do something like: @PART[*]:HAS[#assemblyName[Squad]]:AFTER[Squad] {} or maybe @PART[#assemblyName[Squad]]:AFTER[Squad] {} Any advice or other ideas would be greatly appreciated!

That's what I was doing before, but it's hard to figure out which mod the parts come from. I'm super psyched that KerbalX lists out the mods as well as which parts are from which mod. I have some very odd ones that KerbalX has figured out but I could not.

Nevermind! I see that KerbalX does this for me when I upload craft. Woohoo!

Dearest squad, I'm trying to eradicate non-stock parts from my craft files so that I can keep using them across versions. Is there a way that we could somehow show which parts are non-stock so that I can install the mod, remove the parts, and then uninstall the mod? Or if anyone has other suggestions, I would dearly love them. I am a programmer so I could parse the craft files, but I don't really know what to search for right now.

Really wonderful series! Thank you so much, you totally made my morning today!

Sweet, I accept that rationale. There is certainly value in having a single entity running the ship. Mostly I was thinking that it might be a more appropriate vehicle for receiving feedback compared to this forum. The stickies seem to be largely about searching before suggesting and "these are the common suggestions, please don't suggest them again"; both of these are taken care of by UserVoice and GetSatisfaction. The voting is less interesting to me, but I see the problems with it; when given a vote, one generally assumes that it means something.

Dearest Squad, I'm curious to know whether you have considered something like UserVoice or GetSatisfaction as a way of corralling all the suggestions and putting them to a popularity vote? I see from some of the stickies that the same questions come up a lot, and hopefully that would be somewhat reduced; but I think it would be a good way to also allow us to upvote suggestions and make it really obvious which are the most important to us in the community. Thanks!

Dearest Squad, Today I learned about a really cool concept called Transonic flight, and I wish I had learned about it a lot earlier. I would like to propose a very small (I think) change that would have prompted me to learn about this earlier, but doesn't diminish the game-ness of KSP (I understand, Realism Overhaul taught me how unfun space really is). In my opinion, one of the most important things about KSP is the learning potential. So I love the idea of dropping hints all over the place. The fact that this is a game allows us to drop the hint and let people's imaginations fill in the details (and/or ferram4). So, my proposal: 1. Display the flight regime we're in somewhere, perhaps near the navball. KFD puts a little Mach number by the navball, but I think it would be better to display the Mach number and a description of the regime "Mach 0.9 (Transonic)" or "Mach 11 (Hypersonic)". Screenshot below is cropped and edited to make it more obvious, but here's a link to KFD mod for credit:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/73053-105-kerbal-flight-data-release-19-16062015/ 2. From Mach 0.8-1.2, shake the camera more. Maybe even change the mach number display to orange or red. It's a dangerous time! That's all. I don't think implementing shock fans or the significant drag increases is worth it. I recognize that you're trying to wrap up 1.1, but it seems like an easy victory (which I know can be so critical during bug fixing days) and it encourages people to look in KSPedia and on the Internet for more info. Thank you for reading! navball-with-mach.jpg (46.9 KB) vosechu, 04/10/2016 05:50 PM

Thank you for posting screenshots and links, I always love it when you do that! It gives me something really visual to connect with!

I've asked in the other thread and @stupid_chris is going to try to fix this in RealChute 2.0. Woohoo!

Thank you! That would be amazing!

Dearest @stupid_chris, This question may be irrelevant with RC2 coming out, but I wanted to ask anyways. Given 1.1 is coming out I've been looking a lot at things like StockRT and StockScansat to make it possible for my games to continue on past the version bump. The goal is to try to find ways to work awesome mods like RC into stock parts so that even if RC has to be uninstalled, ships just revert back to regular stock behavior (or if they're in orbit, they stay there with no changes because they were using the stock parts all along). I've been trying to make StockRealChute because to me it's impossible to play KSP without realchute. But I've had some issues accessing the new RC parts via module manager. MalahX suggested that this was because RC is using a plugin to add the parts into a new category dynamically, so we can't hide them from the UI (which we've typically done by changing their category to "none", but that's already done ). Do you have any ideas about how I could hide the parts from the UI? I won't be offended if the answer is, "@vosechu, learn to take screenshots and appreciate them when new versions are released. Be mindful of the here and now, not the future or the past." You know, if you're feeling poetic. Thank you so much for making this great mod. I recommend it to everyone and can't imagine KSP without it. In addition, I learned a great deal about parachutes because of this mod and I really appreciate that!