JohnnyPanzer

Sweet! Can't wait to download the update when I get home. Say, @JadeOfMaar, which skybox is that? It's gorgeous!

Isn't it 46k? Anyway, as @Aelfhe1m said, it makes perfect sense when you consider the interior being constructed. Just send up a separate cargoship once you've assembled the station, carrying everything you need. That's what I always do and it feels both realistic and a bit "roleplayish". I always assemble my stations dry and uncrewed and then once it's assembled I'll send up a large ship that's basically just a bunch of containers and a hitchhiker can or two. I like to imagine it being like in one of the Star Trek movies, with the crew arriving at the almost finished vessel in a shuttle and then the station's chief engineer get's to weld on the last bolts before they can all embark. Space stations have always been (meant to be) less self sufficient in MKS, so it makes perfect sense that they would require shipments from either home or a colony in order to construct certain large sections. I like it.

He is, I forgot to clarify that. And just for good measure I have a scienteist and a medic in the medbay as well as in other parts of the station.

You were right, CCK needed updating. Like you said, it must've been downgraded by another mod, because I had the parts a week ago for sure. Anyway, your suggested fix cleared everything up, thank you for your trouble. edit: While I'm at it, what sort of timeframe are we talking about when curing tourists in a medbay? Picking up stranded Kerbals on Ceti is kinda hard to do before their EVA timer runs out, so they will always be tourists when I pick them up. But so far I've been unable to cure anyone in my medlab in orbit. I have full nuclear power, a 142% load on the activated medbay, both a scientist AND a medic in the medbay, plenty of colony supplies (with refills coming in from Gael with regular intervals) a hab time of more than 10 years, supplies and recykling that will last them roughly two years and yet no one is showing any signs of improvement after more than 500 days. Could this also be related to the CCK being outdated, or is it simply a very, very, veeeeery time consuming process? I can't find any information at all on how long it's supposed to take to cure someone.

Thanks. I'll have a look when I sit down to play later tonight.

To be honest it's mostly scatterer I think. The reason I asked is because I'm a bit hazy as to which mod does what, and I was under the impression that one of the mods was required for the rings. But to answer your question: 1. I don't like the clouds.The volymetric clouds are fine, but the texture layer is an eye sore in my taste. It's too opaque, reacts weirdly to various lighting situations (i.e. dark clouds with a crisp, clearly visible border) and the have quite a few bugs for me. Sometimes they just appear on half the planet, other times they appear to be superimposed on the planet without following perspective. Simply put, they add very little to me but cause quite a lot of distraction. 2. The water level being randomly raised or lowered with as much as a few hundred feet with each scene load is distracting. Sure, I could go back to the tracking station to force a scene reload, but it's still annoying. 3. The sunsets can be amazing, but the are just as likely to be ruined by having black lines at the horizon, depth issues or any other number of glitches. 4. The improved terrain textures (I assume this is EVE?) are great, but they frequently produce geometrical, hypnotic patterns when viewed from orbit from certain angles. So everything will look fine and then you pan the camera and all of the sudden the whole planet surface will have flickering tweed-like patterns going on. 5. The same textures will also jitter a lot when viewed from the ground, so it appears as if you're holding an electric toothbrusch to your temples while looking at the screen. The ground simply vibrates. It's... headache inducing. Performance is not really an issue. I have a decent system and the mods don't produce much lag for me. Part packs are much worse for performance in my experience. TL;DR They can be gorgeous at times, but they simply produce too many glitches for me to consider the trade-off worth it. It's a matter of taste I think. A similar example would be how some people will rather run games on low settings with great framerate, while others prefer crisp visuals with a frmaerate of 10fps. Me, I'm sensitive to graphic glitches. I get so distracted by them that I can't enjoy even the greatest visuals. (Also, I'm not trying to complain. I can see the allure of the mods, and the great effort and skill that went into making them. I just wanted to answer your question. )

I'm having an issue where several parts refuse to show up in VAB/SPH. I first noticed it when I set about constructing a forklift and realized that the Akita Command Seat is simply missing, and as I looked around and started to compare things with the tech tree I also discovered that most of the wheels are missing along with some other parts. SO to clarify, they show up in the tech tree and the nodes are unlocked, but the parts are not to be found in any of the categories in VAB/SPH. I ran some logs and as far as I can tell they are loading just fine. I get no warnings, errors or exceptions for anything and the log indicates that the parts have been loaded and compiled, but they're still missing. I running MKS/USI with the Galileo pack and I have a ton of mods, so I will attempt to add mods one by one to a clean install and see if I can find the issue that way, but I just wanted to ask here first in case it's a known issue or someone knows what might cause it. Love the mods though, they add a whole new layer of gameplay. Keep up the great work!

The more I play, the more I realize that I'm not very fond of the graphical updates I get from EVE and scatterer, but I would still love to have rings around the planets that are supposed to have them. Just out of curiosity (and in preparation for my next career), what would be the best way to minimize usage of those mods while still getting planet rings? What could be ignored (i.e. not installed at all), what settings could be tweaked, what would be absolutely necessary in order to get the rings?

I wholeheartedly agree with @Streetwind I don't see the point of it and even if there's an argument that would convince me hidden somewhere in there, I'll never get to see it because I get a headache trying to read walls of text with zero formatting. Put some effort into your presentation and I promise I'll hear you out.

So I've had some time to play with GPP, with USI as the main support mod, and it's been a blast so far. You've done such a great job with this pack, there's personality and a sense of flair to the planetary bodies that rivals and frankly surpasses the stock system. In fact, it's safe to say that for the forseable future this IS My new stock system. I'll try to post some screens later, but for now I'd like to mention the few issues I've encountered so far, just in case my information brings something new to the table: # I get arrays of flickering orbit lines while zoomed out in map view. The further out from it's pivot point the camera is, and the closer it is to the system "equator", the more flickering I'll get. To be honest, I've experienced this in stock as well but to a much lesser degree. I suspect that it's simply a stock issue that has gotten worse due to increased system scale. In no way is it game breaking. # The Grannus contract bug is a bit annoying since I tend to use World's First contracts to roleplay my progression in career saves. Initially I was completely unable to get another contract (after Gael/Ceti/Iota WF were all done) no matter how many times I gave Grannus the cold shoulder. I even tried to savescum to respawn the contract, and while it did cycle the Grannus contract (between flyby, flyby/return and flyby/science/return) I was unable to generate a contract for another body after more than 250 reloads (no, I didn't have anything better to do at the time). However, and this might be good to know, once I launched a bunch of flyby probes to the outer planets I started getting non-Grannus WF contracts as soon as the first probe entered the SOI of a body outside the Gael system. I should add that even though the first flyby probe entered the SOI of an outer planet, the first new WF contract that spawned was for Icaros, so it would appear that a flyby of any SOI outside the Gael system is enough to unlock WF for bodies other than Grannus. So to recap: if you are completely locked in by the Grannus contract bug, just do a flyby of ANY body outside Gael/Ceti/Iota and you should be getting new offers. Hope that helps someone else and thanks again for the great planet pack!

So... any plans on changing the default name to Gaelman? As in Jebediah Gaelman.

So last night I had time to download and install everything just in time for bed. I did manager to have a quick look and it looked awesome! You've done one hell of a job with this one, no doubt about it. From what little time I had, I was able to troubleshoot most systems, and as far as I can tell, the only thing not working "out of the box" is TextureReplacer. I suspect I downloaded the wrong version, but just to save me some time: 1. The regular gitHub download for TR Will not work with 1.2, is that correct? 2. As long as I have the right version of TR installed correctly, the rest is simply a matter of extracting your replacement textures into the TR folder structure, correct? No need for manual .cfg editing? Thank you for the great work and any further help.

I've been looking for something completely different for a while now, and this just won my vore. I'm making a clean install tonight and will spend my workday deciding what sort of mod package I'm going to run it with. For once I want to try a more streamlined experience, so I want to keep the number of mods to a minimum. I'm thinking USI, ResearchBodies and SCANsat as the main ones and then some minor ones like TWP and various eye-candy. Am I correct in assuming Engineer Redux will play nicely with Galileo?

How about a heavy seaplane with pontoons on stilts and a magnet on it's belly? Then you could land nearby and taxi out to the capsule untill you are directly above it, and phantom forces from The magnet should be less dangerous since you're not airborne.

Can't really tell what's going on in the first pic, but in the second one it sure looks like one of the ports is the kind with a toggled cover. That one will not attach in the VAB. Never has.

I always use the same system, though the theme of the names changes from save to save. To begin with, I always use modular designs made up of pre-constructed subassemblys and then each launch gets its own .craft file. So subassemblys are the real meat and bone, while vessel saves only serve as a history book of sorts. I then use the following naming conventions: Subassemblys are named either according to a common theme (for launchers) or according to function. They also get a numerical 'Mk', with each Mk denoting a major version change. For smaller tweaks the same Mk is kept with an added letter. So a lander with updated science equipment after unlocking a new tech node would go from 'Mk3' to 'Mk3b'. Utterly outdated designs are deleted to avoid cluttering up The subassembly UI. Examples: 2-man Atmo Lander Mk3 K-Sat LKO Relay Mk2c Scarab Launcher Mk7 Junebug Launcher Mk1b As for vessels, I name them according to ongoing missions and then give them roman numerals in sequence of launch. Each mission has a pretty wide scope, its own mission patch and a name that fits the mission statement. There can be more than one ongoing mission at any given time. Examples from my current save: Basic exploration of Mun and Minmus: Modesty I-XIV Mining Operations on Minmus: Core I-VII Exploration of Duna and Ike: Crimson Dawn I-III In addition to these rules, planes and rovers are named "PzType 'Name' Versionnumber-Versionletter" where the name simply has to be unique and the number is in the tens. So for example: PzFl 'Spearhead' 30-B PzSp 'Orbiter' 70-C PzRv 'Observer' 20-A

All the time. I only use manual struts for astethic reasons these days.

I love your attitude! "Guys, I'm not using this feature, help me come up with missions that would require me to do so". That is a perfect example of the pioneer spirit! My suggestion: try to assemble a truly huge station in orbit, without each part having it's own dedicated engine. You will quickly find a use for RCS.

Good question! I changed that setting last night because I was sick of seeing sats trace a signal through large chunks of terrain at 100% occlusion, but I never actually checked the results before going to bed. I just assumed that the planet/moon diameter and the imaginary occlusion diameter would use any probe trying to trace a signal as the "pivot point" of the two circles. I'll report back.

Signal for control - because I figure probes would have some basic pre-programing. Plasma blackout - for added realism. Occlusion at 100% for atmo and 105% for vacuum - to account for some terrain. DSN signal at 150% and vessel signal at 50% - because I want occlusion to be the main issue, not range. Ground stations turned off - for the extra challange and simply because I enjoy setting up extra ground stations my self.

Are you sure you don't have plasma blackouts checked? On my save with groundstations turned on, that blind spot rarely affects me when I'm above 50km.

Superb information, thank you! While the exponent isn't a major issue, I still fail to see the point of it. As stated earlier, even without it stacking was far from OP, so all it does is add confusion and complexity for complexity's own sake. Actual antenna range for 100% signal strength was allready something that required spreadsheets, formulas and calculators to even get a reasonable guesstimate. It's as if in order to get the actual ISP of an engine you had to use a modifier on the number shown in-game, that was different for each engine and had never been documented...

I would assume the devs felt that returns should diminish even more? I know it worked that way in early pre, because I ran the numbers. I honestly don't see the need to nerf it further as the squared formula (just like Kelderek says) combined with the large difference in strength between antenna tiers allready means you'd need stupid stacks to even come close to the next tier up. Let's use a made up antenna with a strength of 1Mm as an example: Say you have a sat with such an antenna in LKO and now you wanna place a sat around the Mun capable of reaching it using stacks of the same 1Mm antenna. To get a healthy 12Mm range your second sat would need 150 antennas! SQUARE ((150x1000km)x1000km)=12 247km So is the modifier needed for game balance?

Great Scott! Getting that far up the learning curve in 10 hours is impressive! Glad to see yet another Kerbonaut join the ranks, I hope to see more of your adventures.

I believe the question was about stacked antennas. Haven't heard anything regarding a modifier, last I checked it was a simple matter of adding the antennas together before running the formula. So a probe with four 1k antennas connecting to a probe with one 1k antenna would give a range of SQUARE ((1000x4)x1000)=2k. If a modifier was added I too would love to know about it.