micha

You generally have this problem as you add mods with additional science experiments. The core game is "balanced" against just the stock experiments after all. To mitigate this you can use a tech tree which adds more expensive nodes, and/or adjust the science multiplier in your game. But as I said, I'm happy to take feedback and adjust values to try to make the game more balanced TBH it's been a very long time since I actually just sat down and played KSP; mostly it's been coding/testing. Which I enjoy, but it means I only get a limited view of the overall gameplay these days.

Finalize is on the module storing the experiment. But you are right, there should be a "Move" action once the experiment has been "Finished" so yes, Kemini is currently broken with the SoyJuice pods. This is ultimately my fault - many years ago I asked Nehemiah to simplify the way Kemini experiments are being run as back then I didn't know about HGR. A "quick fix" for yourself is to move the Kemini lab into the SoyJuice for now (simple config file edit). For the proper fix i need to adjust the code so that it works "correctly" for Soyuz-style capsules. The MEP includes all the machinery for the robot arm and platform. Kolumbus is just an empty shell - you need to launch the lab equipment separately which overall will make it heavier. That said I'm happy to adjust the figures, I barely touched them from what Nehemiah originally specified. None really, just different materials being exposed (you can read up about the actual experiments which were flown). But yeah, should probably give roughly the same amount of science.. again, happy to adjust the values based on feedback. Always good to have a new player come along and consider balancing things out a bit more.

I'm really sorry, I've never tried Kerbalism before. My understanding is that it overrides the way science works, or at least how it is collected, and NEOS does major changes to the way science is handled, so I'm guessing any interoperability is going to be somewhat fragile. I thought the new Kerbalism basically just exempted all NEOS experiments from its own handling. I don't know what you mean by "slots for samples" - if that is a Kerbalism thing, then it most definitely will not work with Kemini experiments.

Ah, interesting. It's been on my "todo" list to investigate. Then again, KEES is much simpler overall to general KIS construction, so I might have a play with it regardless. The other thing is that KIS is free whereas people would have to buy Breaking Ground. It _should_ fail gracefully. The KEES experiments will not be available. (For BG, see my reply to Brigadier) Experiments should work fine in Science mode, although most of my testing is done in Career.

Just released 0.9.0. Some minor bug fixes and official recompile for KSP1.9.1 (But _should_ still work from 1.8.x onwards). My bigger changes will have to wait.. despite the current global situation I'm not really getting much time for KSP these days

Sorry for late reply, and yes, rather surprisingly, the current version still does work in 1.9. I'm totally bogged down in an update; I probably should just recompile and re-release the current version for now since the update seems to be dragging on forever.

Thanks, should be fixed now.

Mods for 1.9 should be compatible with KSP1.8, so you're best off using the latest version of DAPI (6.8.6). Apart from that have a look at the Changelog to see if any of the fixes are worth it or not for you..

Thanks for the kind words :-) Afraid I can't claim the credit though, it's all down to @NavyFish for creating the mod. I just occasionally oil the squeaky wheels. Do you have any other mods installed? Log files? How did you install it (CKAN?) Sorry, not much to go on..

I don't; and yes I agree. Modern infotainaries are mostly catering to the LCD and have little actual content. I keep finding myself turning them off part-way through when they get too irritating. However, like I alluded, this question arose from many different sources. I'm not quite at the reading of actual science papers level, but I do read more than pop articles. To get this thread back on topic, it was nothing to do with life (I shouldn't have gone into that much backstory); it's the fact that pretty much anything I come across _appears_ to use the current huge selection bias (due to our limited instrument capabilities) when talking about exoplanets in whatever the current topic at hand is. And I've seen an evolution of this selection bias over years, the overall narrative changing from "multi-planetary systems are rare" to "rocky planets are rare" to "earth-mass sized planets are rare" just as our instruments and techniques have improved. Of course there are many other, more nuanced, biases as well, but ultimately always something which makes me think that it's due to our current detection methods rather than what's actually plausibly out there in the universe. Now I'm sure in actual science papers this is not the case, but even pieces which are written/presented by (supposedly) respected members of the scientific community have these issues. Hence my question whether (some of) these biases are actually grounded in fact, as @wafflemoder seemed to say for the particular case I mentioned..

Of course you have to dream of the future. If you can't conceive of something which doesn't exist yet, how can you work towards that? The only difference being that if you live forever[1] there's a good chance you yourself can live to see your dreams fulfilled[2] and don't just have to pass your dreams on to the next generation and hope that they work on the next step to realising them. [1] Estimates are that even being careful, immortal humans (as in, physiologically not aging or prone to age-related diseases) would at most live to ~6000years before succumbing to accidents or other diseases. [2] Unless, of course, they are fantasy, such as your donut-shaped planets.

So something that's been bugging me for a while now when watching documentaries (well, mostly these days they are docutainments, but that's a rant for another day) about planets and exoplanets are the various assumptions being made. Just the other day I watched something which was trying to speculate on what aliens might look like, going into chemistry etc etc. Amongst various things they concluded aliens would likely have a carbon-water based chemistry and any multicellular organisms would likely evolve on rocky planets, with any industrialised (ie, "bronze-age" and higher) aliens living on land due to needing fire. All justified in the documentary. They also posited that even though this narrows the number of possible exoplanets exhibiting "intelligent" life significantly, there should still be plenty left in our own galaxy for it to be common. Anyway, at one stage they asserted that most likely any aliens would evolve under a higher gravity than Earth given that the majority of rocky exoplanets are quite a bit larger than Earth. Err, hangonaminute!! This is the bit which, as so often before, threw me. Yes, the majority of currently discovered rocky exoplanets are more massive than Earth. Simply because our instruments are selectively biased towards discovering more massive planets. Not so long ago, the majority of discovered exoplanets were "hot Jupiters" with documentaries at the time claiming that rocky planets were rare. Conversely, using our own solar system which we can study in more detail, we discover that most rocky planets are actually less massive than the Earth. Now I'm just an armchair astronomer, but even I can see that the numbers and types of currently _catalogued_ exoplanets are nowhere near representative of what's really out there at this stage of our exploration of our own galaxy. How can these supposed experts disregard this very fundamental fact and make these absurd claims? As I said, this was just the most recent example, but generally speaking pretty much every documentary which talks about exoplanets makes some claim which is only justified when using the currently available data, without any consideration as to the limitations of our current knowledge. Am I missing something here?

Well, I was basically going to say "tough" especially since the author or RealChutes is no longer maintaining the mod at present, but I decided to have a play anyway. So I've changed the config a bit, and it seems it may have been due to the manually-specified DRAG_CUBE entry in the Corvus_Nose part. I've removed that and used DragMultiplier modules instead, and it seems to work for both stock and RealChute.[1] Pre-release available on GitHub for those wanting to give it a try. EDIT: [1] Which, if I'd re-read the comments from page 2, would have been a lot quicker to figure out. EDIT2: Since nobody has complained (well, the entire 1 person that had downloaded the pre-release...) I've made it a full release now. Enjoy!

Awesome! Thanks for identifying at least one of the causes! If you look up, various people have reported excessive drag before, but I've never been able to repro and they've never sent me enough info to look into it further. I'll see what, if anything, can be done about this.

Send me a PR As long as it doesn't break things for non-Kerbalism players I'll merge it in.

Hey @Kaboose, Interestingly the last official release still works with KSP1.8+ despite being compiled for KSP1.7. Just goes to show that things don't always need recompiling.. I have updated the projects, but then got stuck in some rework and haven't really had time to progress to making a release. I really need to set aside some time for this! At the very least making a beta release. As for the GitHub downloads, yes, you can just download "OrbitalStationScience" which does not require KIS - only KEES does. On GitHub the 3 main components are stand-alone, so people can mix-n-match. I am considering splitting the mod up again into its 3 main components on CKAN too since Kemini and KEES are pretty much feature-complete and rarely need any updates, whereas OSS still has a lot of work in the pipeline. N3h3mia did that before (on my suggestion) but because the plugin remained a shared component every change to the source code meant releasing an updated version of all the mods anyway. I'm now thinking of truly splitting them apart, even though it will mean some duplication of code between the 3 mods.

Thanks for the recommendation NEOS does, rather surprisingly, work in 1.9.x, and I have a WIP up on GitHub which has been compiled with 1.8. I just need to put aside some more time to work on it. The requirement on KIS is only for the "KEES" part of it. You can download the Orbital Science bit separately from GitHub rather than the whole package. And I've been considering breaking NEOS up again into the 3 main sections as @N3h3mia did at one stage, but this time without the interdependencies. Kemini and KEES are pretty much feature-complete and rarely need any tweaking these days, but Orbital Science still needs major work. But because they all use more or less the same engine, any tweak to any one of them requires a release of all of them.

That's odd - the version file marks Corvus_CF compatible up to 1.9.99. Ah, but CKAN uses Spacedock for the metadata. Let me update it (Spacedock can't be told that a mod is compatible with future versions of KSP). I might change that... Should be good as soon as CKAN updates.

Connected Living Space und Ship Manifest sind jetzt (bald) auf Deutsch uebersetzt.

Awesome, and yes I saw the email notification! Sorry for not replying earlier, but I'm in GMT+9 currently. Will review and merge later today, thank you so much @knifelight!

And it's on CKAN now - I was waiting a few fays to give the keenest people a chance to download manually, install, and test it first before letting it loose on everybody. Hence also the (about to be removed) warning on the download link..

If anybody is interested in having this mod in another language, I'd love some help with translations! I just opened a request in the Addon Localisation thread:

(deleted)

[EDITED] - changed to be a meta-post for all the mods I maintain. Hi, I'd love some more translations for the following mods. If anybody is keen, please post in the actual forum threads for each mod so that people don't work on the same language.. Corvus CF Done: [Deutsch] Remaining: [Русский] [Español] [中文] [日本語] [Português] [Italiano] [Français] GitHub: Please see the feature/localisation Branch for current localisation work. Effort: ~23 lines / 400 words Kerbal Dust EXperiment Done: [Deutsch] Remaining: [Русский] [Español] [中文] [日本語] [Português] [Italiano] [Français] GitHub: Please see the feature/localisation Branch for current localisation work. Effort: ~100 lines / 800 words (mostly the science results strings; base mod is ~50 words) Connected Living Space Done: [Русский] [Español] [中文] [Deutsch] [Italiano] Remaining: [日本語] [Português] [Français] GitHub: Please see the features/localisation branch for translation work. Effort: ~37 lines / 150 words Ship Manifest Done: [Español] [Deutsch] Remaining: [Русский] [中文] [日本語] [Português] [Italiano] [Français] GitHub: Please see the features/localisation branch for translation work. Effort: ~350 lines / 3000 words

So I just merged in a pull request from someone into a GitHub repo, and at first it all showed up as expected - the commits from the other author, and the merge commit. Keeping a nice history in the git repository. But now the commits from the other author have disappeared and my repo is only showing the final merge commit. I'm very unhappy about this as it removes the contribution from the other author from the commit log. It seems that this is standard practise for GitHub as my own pull requests into other repos have similarly lost "my" commits (I wasn't sure whether the other authors did something on purpose to do that or not). Does anyone know if there is any way to force GitHub to keep the individual commits from the other authors in the git history? I've tried searching online but haven't found anything relevant. ----- EDIT: hmm, so looking through the web history, the commits are showing up. And using "git log" they also show up. But they're not showing up in "Git Extensions" anymore, and I can't find a setting to show them again. So looks like it's an oddity in Git Extensions rather than GitHub... Move along, nothing to see here after all. ---- EDIT2: Git Extensions now has a "Show First Parents" option in the View menu, with a hot-key combination. Looks like I might have accidentally triggered that.