albany_

Sure thing! Astronomer's Visual Pack | Latest, installed via GitHub instructions Astronomer's Visual Pack (v3.74) | download Astronomer's Visual Pack 4K Textures (v1.7) | download Environmental Visual Enhancements (v1.4.2-2) | download Scatterer (v0.053) | download ModuleManager (v4.0.2) | download TextureReplacer (v3.7) | download DistantObjectEnhancement (v1.9.1.1) | download* Chatterer (v0.9.96) | download* Loading Screen Manager (v1.2.5.3) | download* PlanetShine (v2.6.1) | download* TextureReplacer (v3.7) | download KS3P (v5.0) | download* Kopernicus (v1.6.1-2) | download KopernicusExpansion (v0.2.0) | download* MechJeb2 (v2.8.3) | download MechJeb For All (v???) | download (just a config file, I can't find where I originally downloaded it from) SCANsat (v18.10) | download Ven's Stock Revamp (latest 1.6 branch) | download TweakScale (latest orthodox branch) | download AutomatedScienceSampler (v1.3.5) | download* [x] Science Continued (v5.20) | download *Add-on was not explicitly compiled for/released as compatible with 1.6.1, but community reports have suggested compatibility. --- Also, here's a filelist with paths of everything in my KSP GameData folder, in case that might come in handy.

If it would be helpful, I can make a list of the addons I'm using, or send you links to where I pulled them from, or even just zip up the whole folder (minus Squad) and shoot it your way. Just let me know.

Incredible response. I'm impressed you were able to deduce so much from just a log, though I suppose that's the objective of logging. A quick scan through my installed mods doesn't throw up any immediate red flags for conflicts -- most of them are visual/aesthetic. The outliers that could maybe be mucking things up... maybe SCANsat? I don't know, I worry more that this is a problem particular to my setup, given that a) the mods I use aren't particularly obscure or large in scale and b) I couldn't find many people posting with a similar problem. The other weird thing is that I've played KSP off and on for ages and have included pretty much the same mods every time I update and start messing around again and this is the first time I've run into any problems with TweakScale. But hey, what do I know? I really appreciate your willingness to help me sort out this issue -- I know it's partly because there could be a bug somewhere, but still. Thanks for the heads up -- looks like it's being maintained again. Took a shot at seeing if it suddenly fixed the issue -- no luck, but that's probably expected.

Thanks for pointing me towards the orthodox branch. I dropped in the GameData folder from that branch and I'm still seeing this issue: Worth noting that the "Scale - Default" option can't be changed and the Scale doesn't match stack defaults, nor does it increase TWR, mass, or cost. Full KSP.log here -- woulda used pastebin, but it was too long. I should say, try not to take too much stock into what I described the problem's source as initially -- I don't know if that's actually the problem here, it's just what I thought was the problem based on reading posts in this thread from the last month or so. Entirely new parts don't appear to have this problem. It doesn't seem like parts that aren't set to stack scale have this issue either, but I haven't looked closely enough to say for certain. Let me know if there's anything else I can provide.

Hey @Lisias -- sorry if I missed this somewhere, there's been a lot of posts with stuff I haven't fully followed -- but the mod patch issue you mentioned above, was that resolved? I'm still running into it with some of Ven's Stock Revamp parts and was hoping to find some direction on how to resolve it on my end. To be clear, the issue I'm referring to is configs that add TweakScale modules to Squad parts that are modified/hijacked by other mods aren't working correctly in-game and reporting a null reference error. Thanks! :)

I don't mind the current functionality, since you can choose whether or not to have the thrust plate based on which attach node you use, I'm just not sure why they sometimes go missing. Just an annoying bug. Thinking about it, I think the thrust plates work in the same way engine shroud fairings do. I wonder if the fact that there are technically two fairings for these parts, one for the engine shroud and one for the thrust plate, is the root of this issue.

Not the Poodle, but I've got this on reload with the Nerv's 2.5m plate: I had it happen on two crafts that were identically built, but I haven't figured out what's causing it -- it doesn't seem to happen 100% of the time.

"It" being? EDIT: Oh, nevermind. Looks like the upgrade function is stock now. That's awesome! I'll have to work on getting this mod updated over the weekend, then.

Hey all, I've recently had some free time, allowing for me to revisit KSP (and this mod), but it appears that Merill's PartUpgrade plugin is no longer functional on the latest version of KSP. I see that @Alshain managed to get this up and running again on 1.1.2, but he probably doesn't have the interest/bandwidth in recompiling for 1.2.2. Still, I had some functional prototypes that I liked that depended on PartUpgrade, so maybe I'll look into figuring out how to recompile it myself.

Sorry everyone -- work has been extremely busy lately and I haven't had an opportunity to verify this works with 1.0.5 (nor update it to include the latest Merill plugin). Hope to do this soon and update the thread accordingly.

Ah, okay, that all makes sense. You learn something every day.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. My understanding was that if an object in orbit suddenly gains/loses mass, the pull of gravity on that object increases/decreases, disrupting the object's orbit. My assumption was that you added the "persistent" flag to counteract this effect, but if I understand what you're saying, the game itself compensates for the change in mass and maintains its previous orbital trajectory.

That's actually what I initially had in mind when I started looking for a solution to what I wanted to make with TBPSASU (I wish I had a catchier name). Quick question, not sure if you've tested this or not: if you reduce a part's mass through tech, does it affect the orbits of existing craft with that part? Or does it all sort of compensate? I know you have already built a solution to this with the persistence flag but I was just curious if that was why.

v1.1.0 is available now on KerbalStuff. No big changes here, just updating to latest PartUpgrade .dll. I also created a new floppy disc model that's a little closer to KSP style and is much smaller in terms of filesize -- being new to creating things online, the whole "borrowing a model from blender exchange" made me uneasy, even with licensed permission. The new model's included in v1.1.0 -- let me know what you think.