Ippo

Probably the cleanest solution is to increase the repair distance to something ridiculous like 20m, repair your stuff, and then bring it down again. I'll work on it soon, but I'm kinda busy lately.

What version of the mod are you using? The last version for 0.24 is 0.3.3.1, which already includes the fix. You can also fix it by simply increasing the repair distance to 2 m or more in the settings. The MET is not used to compute the age, so no problem there.

Your question is the reason why some mods decided to disable themselves on win64.

Make them lighter - no: I don't define the SpareParts, Community Resource Pack does. In the previous versions you took 1 at a time, but it was annoying - so I removed it and now it's a new problem I'll reimplement the limit, maybe this time configurable: sounds good?

Just a small notice: I pushed an "update" on KS, but it only adds CKAN support and nothing else has changed in the code, so no need to upgrade.

Alpha 4.3 is out! This is mostly an OSX compatibility update. Fixes a file handling exception on OSX. Removes the unity compatibility warning . Adds CKAN support. Improves the SpareParts cfg using SandWorm's edits. Now every part with crew capacity up to 8 can contain spare parts, plus the mk1 structural fuselage (because SandWorm said so). I incorporated his changes, meaning that now by default the amount of spares is greatly reduced, but I left by default about 20%. I hope this fixes the OSX problems!

Those come first: take all the time you need and thank you again!

5.7 trials, to be exact

In DangIt I set the part to glow red if it's disabled, like this. Yesterday I noticed it's not working anymore, and the only mod I installed lately that messes with lighting and stuff is PlanetShine. But after your answer, I'd say it's not your fault, it's probably something else. Now off to remove 50+ mods one by one to find the culprit. Yay! XD

Hey Valerian, do you hijack the part's glow functionality, by chance? Some mod is preventing parts from glowing when my mod sets them, and I can't figure out which one.

However, I'm pretty sure that modifications made for personal use can probably get away with "fair use". The point is rendered moot by the fact that the source that r4m0n posted is incomplete, and this brings me to my next question: Wat. Where did you find the class TreeListItemData? It's not in the source, and it's not from KSP... I'll pm you.

You probably forgot to install the alternate config for deadly reentry, check out in the thread. It's very possible even on 10x scale, provided you have installed the cfgs of course.

Module Manager will detect the multiple instances and only run the most recent version. Of course, as the OP says: It's not a problem to have multiple copies... but it's better not to have them.

It used to be less dense, but not I've moved to Community Resource Pack and therefore the definition of Spare Parts is not under my control anymore (and that's for the best, imho). Sandworm has already provided me with an improved config file for spare parts that I'll slip into the next update (which is coming very shortly, as soon as LupinoArts can confirm that the mac problem is fixed), that sets the default to a lot less and adds them to every manned part. Of course, you could just edit the cfg file to set the default to zero, if you can't wait. I don't have the faintest idea how to make models, and so I can't make anything. The guys of Universal Storage have announced they will make a pack for this mod, but in the meantime, we are stuck with no containers (and that's why pods have so many spares in them).

To activate an event (the button thingy to repair stuff) you need to be within a maximum distance from the part. KSP computes this from the centre of the part: this is particularly important for huge, long tanks: you need to go near their centre for the event to show up at all. Also note that the default distance is set to 2 metres, which is just enough to interact with 3.75m parts: this should be enough to interact with the NASA tanks, but maybe you might want to increase it to allow a little more room. It will also be necessary if you have any modded 5m tanks in your game.

Issues opened, looking forward to it!

I will gladly join ASAP, expect my github issue later this afternoon

Care to explain why? I don't understand how it works.

Thanks Fly Angry, I'll look into it as soon as get a chance, I'm kinda busy these days. I'm glad you are having fun Also, I don't have any mac around here, so I might ask for your cooperation in testing intermediate builds, if that's ok for you.

Yes, I've seen it, but no progress so far. I was referring to ghost's post

No logs, no party, guys.

No, *you* could Again, this is meant to be strictly a framework for other mods to build on: there won't be any effect, part, or any other specific detail aside from a system to read and write perks, plus some completely implementation-agnostic trees to give third party mods a common ground to agree on

Well, to be honest, I am really undecided about science and funds: perk points are 100% here to stay, but maybe we might also add an optional cost in science and funds on top of that. The reason is that, if a perk is unlocked only by science and funds, you can bypass the experience requirements and just pay your way out of a problem. For example, imagine you want to model a progression in flight skills every X hours: if the player can just pay to progress through the tree, the whole point of the mod is lost. I'd rather have the mod itself have its own ways to convert science and funds to perk points. Or, as I said, put an optional cost to the unlock of a perk, in addition to the perk point. The way mods award perk points is, imho, outside the scope of this project: I think that forcing a common algorithm would be too restrictive and wouldn't leave modders the freedom to model stuff as they like. Sure, consensus is always nice (that's what this project is about, after all), but I don't think it should be enforced at the framework level. Also, in your example, it seems correct to me that the two mods interfere: if something is increasing morale and something else is decreasing it, then it's correct that it stays constant Although I have to say, morale is definitely something this framework is not fitted for... Eheh, it was about time, squad! But yes, as noted by scottpaladin, I don't think the stock mechanic will be even close to the versatility we want to achieve here, so it's cool. If anything it can integrate better Well, no, I am not planning for that. But you can easily work around it, and it's a cleaner solution imho than replacing a perk that was already obtained. Also, if you think about it, ranks don't really replace each other: a commander is higher in rank than a lieutenant, and in fact he has all the powers of a lieutenant, and more. So a promotion adds more powers, but doesn't replace the ones you already have. For this specific case, you could make a linear "tree" (just a straight line with no branches) and just count how many ranks have been obtained, so it is still pretty easy

I think I'm gonna need the full log for this...

FilthyMcnasty: give it a try then, you can always uninstall it later if you don't like it. Unloaded vessels are immune, so don't worry about your communication networks, they are totally safe unless you switch to them. LupinoArts: it seems to me that you are running KSP from a folder you don't have write access to. Could you please try running KSP as administrator and see if it keeps happening? I will try to figure out a solution for the next update.