Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


689 Excellent

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • About me
    Bottle Rocketeer
  • Location
    Canberra, Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The heat shields have the same stats as stock shields already. You’ll have to either adjust your reentry to be shallower, and/or decelerate at kerbin. Returning from Eve with an AP around Duna actually means you need to decelerate more than a plain Duna return too - anything beyond the ideal hohmann transfer (lower PE or higher AP, the further you are from matching the target planets solar orbit) means more energy to shed. I’d say direct return from Sarnus probably voids the shield’s warranty too lol Also what system scale are you playing at? Larger scales will have a huge impact on heat shield performance. You could always just patch them yourself if you really want to tweak them too.
  2. Barring installation issues, if you’re playing with the setting for individual part unlocks with funds, you’ll still need to go to R&D, unlock the appropriate nodes and purchase each part to use them (or pay for the full node unlock). Otherwise it should be fine with either Community Tech Tree or the stock tech tree. Other third party modded tech trees aren’t supported on our side, if they have issues it’s best to report it to them.
  3. You can zip the log and upload to something like Dropbox or google drive. However first, this is possibly just an issue with Tweakscale - if you have it, I’d suggest fully uninstalling it (and ksp recall) and installing Tweakscale Rescaled instead, it is much more stable than the other version.
  4. @theJesuit Hey, just noticed a minor error from some of the simplex patches, which are using FOR[KerbalismDefault], causing incorrect activation of patches depending on default kerbalism The following patches: [LOG 03:34:14.606] :FOR[KERBALISMDEFAULT] pass [LOG 03:34:14.668] Applying update KerbalismSimplex/Support/SimplexNFSpacecraft/@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCurvedSolarPanel]]:FOR[KerbalismDefault] to NearFutureSolar/Parts/SolarPanels/deploying-curved/nfs-panel-deploying-curved-25-1.cfg/PART[nfs-panel-deploying-curved-25-1] [LOG 03:34:14.668] Applying update KerbalismSimplex/Support/SimplexNFSpacecraft/@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCurvedSolarPanel]]:FOR[KerbalismDefault] to NearFutureSolar/Parts/SolarPanels/deploying-curved/nfs-panel-deploying-curved-375-1.cfg/PART[nfs-panel-deploying-curved-375-1] [LOG 03:34:14.668] Applying update KerbalismSimplex/Support/SimplexNFSpacecraft/@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCurvedSolarPanel]]:FOR[KerbalismDefault] to NearFutureSolar/Parts/SolarPanels/static-curved/nfs-panel-static-curved-25-1.cfg/PART[nfs-panel-static-curved-25-1] [LOG 03:34:14.669] Applying update KerbalismSimplex/Support/SimplexNFSpacecraft/@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCurvedSolarPanel]]:FOR[KerbalismDefault] to NearFutureSolar/Parts/SolarPanels/static-curved/nfs-panel-static-curved-375-1.cfg/PART[nfs-panel-static-curved-375-1] [LOG 03:34:14.704] Applying update KerbalismSimplex/Support/SimplexNFSpacecraft/@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCurvedSolarPanel]]:FOR[KerbalismDefault] to TundraExploration/Parts/RodanV2/TE_CD2_TRUNK.cfg/PART[TE_18_DRAGONV2_TRUNK]
  5. Looks like it's because Kerbalism Simplex is incorrectly causing BDB to think stock Kerbalism is installed due to some incorrect syntax. For a temporary fix, you should be able to change the first line in GameData/Bluedog_DB/Compatibility/Kerbalism/KerbalismCargo.cfg @PART[bluedog*,Bluedog*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleB9PartSwitch]:HAS[#switcherDescription[Cargo]]]:NEEDS[B9PartSwitch,KerbalismDefault,!LRTR,!Profilesimplex]:AFTER[Bluedog_DB_1]
  6. If you’re using RSS without RO, you could try this It should work fine in 1.12 still. We’re unlikely to be providing part scaling patches for 10x on our end though, especially as SMURFF exists. There also shouldn’t be a b9ps warning with kerbalism, there are patches that should be allowing them to work without error. @Publius Kerman if you want to post a link to your zipped ksp.log I can check if somethings wrong in that regard.
  7. The parts are scaled like stock ksp, which is .625x give or take, with engine performance being 25% irl thrust, and quite heavy dry mass for tankage. This ends up being “overpowered” for stock scale (just like stock parts are), and ideal for 2.5-2.7x scale. BDB isn’t made for RO, so we don’t provide any scaling patches for RO/RSS, that’s all done on the RO team’s side, and its a fair bit more complicated than just a scale multiplier. RO uses entirely different custom systems for engines and resources, and there’s likely mass ratio changes for tankage too. There should be some BDB RO patches out there, though from what I’ve heard they are unfinished. (The only help I can offer is if you try them and get a missing resource definition error on startup, you can press esc to skip the error instead of closing ksp)
  8. Seems like it might be due to some other mod, as it’s unlikely to be something BDB would be affecting. Would need a full ksp.log to look into it either way.
  9. Unlikely afaik, the unofficial wiki might as well be official to be honest. The included craft files might be some help if you’re unsure about some craft
  10. Search your GameData folder for any instance of 'RealNames.cfg' and remove, otherwise will need a KSP.log to diagnose.
  11. Basically the only such texture (ie shared among multiple parts) would be the glow from the insides of some engine bells lol As it is, the way it’s currently set up with pruneable part family folders, is basically the same functionality already. Just remove rocket family folders like atlas/titan/saturn and leave stuff like probes/apollo/skylab and you’ll be left with a lot of the science with a lot less parts overall.
  12. This generally means a copy of your ksp.log, which is required by anyone doing troubleshooting for modded ksp. (The log will also include the mod list so you dont need to worry about that separately) However for your original question, it’s possible you’re just experiencing a quirk of TU, where parts in the part list will look much shinier than they are meant to, and once you pick them out they will look much less bright, as intended. It should look similar to the image in the first post of this thread.
  13. It’s already set up for fairly simple pruning - you should be able to freely remove part family folders inside the parts folder. Eg if you don’t want titans or the probes, you can delete the respective folders.
  14. While its a RO install and so we don’t really offer support for that on our end, if you upload a zipped KSP.log file I can have a quick look to check. It’s likely due to some compatibility patch mis-activation, but given its to do with LS resources, it probably falls on RO to cover the patching.
  • Create New...