goldenpsp

Your complete lack of any details makes it difficult to help you, but in most cases parts not showing up means you installed incorrectly.

Don't think there is. you can use the hyperedit mod and refill your rocket parts.

You are missing the 5 posts directly above you as well as the title stating this mod is currently full of bees (aka broken and unstable).

Maybe not, but the most important person does, which is what really matters.

Rover released all of those yesterday. They aren't pre-release anymore.

YAY, Good timing. I was just about to load KSP and get crackin again.

Yes. Explanation is peppered all through this thread. Kerbals can last 30 days without food with TACLS.

Yea he had warned about that in the latest release

Yay CKAN. Actual version numbers would help, considering that most mods on CKAN were added by someone other than the actual mod developers so they would have no clue. If I had to guess, as all of those mods have had lots of updates recently, is that you are not actually on the latest of all of them.

Sounds like something to take over to the CKAN thread...

Um, it's laid out in the OP.

Much of the ire revolves around your post, at least IMO. It isn't so much how CKAN works but how it has been implemented. The vast majority of mods have been added to CKAN by other people without the mod developers knowledge. So then when there is a CKAN issue people post in the mods thread, when really they should probably be bugging the CKAN thread. In many cases the actual mod dev's answer is "I have no idea I didn't add my mod to CKAN". It is much like the whole 64bit mess where people muck up the mod threads about crashes when they have nothing to do with the mod but due to the 64 bit instability.

CKAN is an abomination at the moment as far as I'm concerned. It causes the same amount of wasted support posts as 64bit did.

There is literally a link for the unofficial update for .90 4 posts above yours on the same page...

you could just go look. The GitHub releases are pretty obvious.

But the best part that Roverdude didn't mention is that his mods are all very open. So the nice thing is if that isn't an answer people like, they can fork it. And no I'm not trying to get around a profanity filter. :-)

No lie, I just had to google that

Sorry but you started it. Saying its what "you believe" and is "common sense" are two very different things. One is your opinion, the other is a slap to anyone who doesn't hold your opinion. This whole thread is academic IMO anyhow. There is no real benefit for squad to implement any realistic aero into the stock game anytime soon.

If you aren't opposed to mods, get docking port alignment indicator. IMO it should be one of those UI elements that should be in the stock game.

Wow, do you actually believe the stuff you are shoveling? I could point to a number of games that allow for incredible levels of configuration for just about every aspect of gameplay. They suffer from none of the issues you claim would befall KSP.

Nothing like the internet to make you regret starting what was meant to be a positive thread.

Says who? Especially in a single player game.

Really? You really need to be able to back up a statement like that if you want it to hold any credibility.

I will start off by stating I have not read all 17 pages of this thread, but it won't stop me from posting my 2 funds. I'm not really going to try arguing either side per se, but just some random points that popped into my head as I was perusing this thread. Take them as you will While I like FAR, I also appreciate the simplified stock aero. One of the big reasons I bought KSP was to play with my son. I like to find games we can play together, especially if they have some level of education. He is only 8, so it is enough of a challenge to teach him the fundamentals of Delta-V, oribts, transfers etc, without having to also learn how to deal with some of the complexities of a more complicated aerodynamic model. This is part of IMO what needs to be taken into account when talking about a "wide" audience. IMO I think the game does well by keeping things simpler in stock, while having the ability for that to be extended via mods. I don't see how having FAR and NEAR as mods is a detriment to KSP. A second, very important aspect is that you need to remember when a mod, or a mods functionality gets integrated into the stock game, that code becomes the responsibility of the developers. So if for example they sucked FAR into the stock game, then the code becomes their responsibility. Either they would have to update and troubleshoot the code, or by some financial agreement have Ferram do it. I think we could all agree that while Squad has done a good job on this game so far, their plate is still quite full getting the game from beta to release. Adding code such as FAR with its complexities into the stock game would, in my opinion, not benefit the development of the game as a whole at this time. By keeping it as a mod gives the players a realistic aero model at no additional cost to squad (why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free).

I wasn't really making this to start a big debate on "what is beta" Mostly it was just that in the last 2 years I have bought a fair number of "early access" games. Now I know what I'm getting into when i do so, but sadly almost all of these games have either sat with very little progress in features/stability, or have gone backwards (looking at you Rust). So it has been nice to see kSP plodding along with a pretty decent amount of progress during that time.