DStaal

That's Supplies, and you're on Kerbin. Kerbals don't eat supplies on Kerbin, so they aren't scavenging for them.

@Choc113 - I'd start by removing all the ModuleManager files except ModuleManager.3.1.0.dll. That will likely help some. I'm not seeing anything else immediately jumping out at me, but perhaps others will see something. For the logs - I know where they are on Mac, but I can't help you on Windows, and I know this link should have the info, but it seems to have the same that you've found:

It's because of the way the bus is built and how TCA works. TCA only works by controlling the throttle of different engines - and this bus only has two engines, one down and one to the back, so there isn't enough to control the bus by varying the engines. If the bottom engines were split out into individual pieces (or even two front and two rear), TCA would be able to work with it. That would be my guess.

If you have Karbonite drills deployed, no not delete the folders. You need them. The Constellation is newer than the most recent standalone release, so it's likely the 'better' version. Get us a picture of your GameData and UmbraSpaceIndustries folders. (And a link to your log, if you can.)

I like them as they simplify my design, as the craft only needs one fuel for both main thrust and for docking/maneuvering. This then means I only need one type of fuel tank, and that I don't have to work quite as hard on how much of each type of fuel I need. Also, a couple of them have the option of integrated fuel tanks - gives you a nice small boost in DV, and on some craft is all the DV you need, which can compact the craft more. The 2.5m engine also nicely fits a docking port inside the ring of engines - I've used this to make nearly 100% reusable resupply drones. (Heat shield on front, parachutes on the sides, it backs up to dock - the only non-resusable part is the fairing.) On a personal note, I tend to think of monoprop as a more 'reliable' fuel - LFO is better if you need the DV, but I'll stick to monoprop as a personal choice for engines that are going to require lots of restarts, as technically it would be simpler, in my opinion.

Point. I suspect it depends on whether you want to pressurize the storage unit - I can see reasons to avoid doing so where possible, but it'd also be far more convenient to keep it pressurized, and some storage would need to be kept inside the life-support envelope - so as a general case I can see it. I guess I just wanted to make sure the most common shape in real life for these was considered.

For the storage depot - it might make sense to have something closer to the cone-topped silos you see around. (Easiest to spot are often the short, squat ones used for gravel near major highways. But the same basic design with the cone top is used on taller narrower cylinders in farms and plants all over the place.)

The inverse option - excluding parts from large packs - is fairly well supported: If you want just one or two parts from a large pack the above can do it, though you have to manually exclude everything else.

Do all the events have to be in one file? Or can you make it so that mod makers can add events to their mod to support your mod? (I'm sure if you wrapped them in a larger node MM could handle the adding, but if they're all top-level I'm not sure how that works.)

The newer version has the same issue for me. I've uploaded the file listing asked for to the Github issue.

I finally got KSP to load long enough to test - the question mark wasn't it. (I haven't tried your new build yet; I wanted to try the old build with the fixed config file first.)

Personally, I'd be more for that... (Copyrights are designed to expire, after all - and their family doesn't have the right to live indefinitely off of their work any more than I have the right to live indefinitely off of my parent's work in my opininon.) Bad comparison, precisely because it introduces moral ambiguity to a situation where there is no legal ambiguity. Other mod authors who were working under ARR have been known to come back and switch licenses on their mods either as they left or after they otherwise left. Yemo hasn't - therefore the mod remains under the restrictions of the original license. Some parts of this mod might be reviable if someone were to write *another* mod which is a set of patches for this mod, in which case you'd need install both mods. (And note that you'd still have to grab this mod from it's original location - they couldn't bundle it with.) That's been done on other mods in this situation. But that can't be done for everything, and would require someone willing to do the work. The other option is for someone to contact him and get him to either transfer the license or to change the license.

My one problem with pushing it up the tech tree is quite often that ends up with the parts unlocking to late to actually be useful for me - especially with US parts, which tend to be early-game parts for me due to the sizes of the ships they work best with. (Though having larger bases and shrouds helps that.)

Nice! Is that one or two uses of the experiment? (With the two internal canisters, I could see it being two 'charges'.)

It would probably be best/easiest to start by looking at Toolbar Controller and seeing how to integrate it - since it was basically written by LinuxGuruGamer for exactly this purpose. He's got quite a bit of example code there for how to use it, and Toolbar Controller can than do the heavy lifting of putting it in the toolbar, managing the buttons, etc. (And even giving the player the option of using the toolbar or using the stock toolbar.)

All of the above are under standard Open Source licenses, and I don't believe any have any specific restrictions on the mods in educational settings. (Some of the licenses were written by universities...) I’m not a lawyer, but I wouldn’t expect you to have any issues.

I've got a new computer over the weekend, and so far can run everything smoothly - except KSP, which loads and then crashes the computer into an unresponsive state. I'll test as soon as I can.

Here you go: BTW: You should fix your editor. UTF8-w/BOM is permitted, but not recommended.

I don't necessarily think that anyone's suggesting there shouldn't be any folders with the name 'PluginData' inside GameData - just that they shouldn't have dynamic or user-modified content. So your images example wouldn't be affected. (Note that 'PluginData' with GameData already does have one other special effect: MM will skip those folders.) And while I agree AddonSettings is a clearer name, the normal KSP install already includes a KSP/PluginData folder. (That is empty.) Using an existing folder over creating a new one - assuming there's no conflicting use - makes sense to me.

Minor comment, but I'd hate to see this in the main updates: Module Manager's current version is 3.1.1.

First two are from Universal Storage II - Though the second probably needs KIS/KAS to appear as well, and the first appears to need either MechJeb of KOS (I have MechJeb.) I thought the last was from Better Science Labs. Apparently it's actually from Science Lab Info: https://github.com/yalov/ScienceLabInfo/releases It's also just a clone of the stock science lab.

I think the main idea at this point is to have a recommendation actually come out, instead of just what the tools default to. Even if no one changes things to follow it, having it out and somewhat agreed as a good idea would be something developers could be pointed to in the future. Also, being able to replace mod folders easily without replacing the settings files would likely help maintenance and troubleshooting - it's easier to just tell people to replace the mod folder when there isn't *anything* they might have changed in it.

Just parts, and it was active through 1.4.3, so it's not really out of date. REKT and PicoPort. (SHED/Steelcrudgeun.) I tried a PR once to start a cleanup for him - it was even accepted, but mangled...

I figure you get a pass on that, as you're picking up the mod and have to deal with the structure already there. You'll likely fix when you get a chance. (There's also one mod author out there who used the structure of 'GameData/Developer' - note no mod folders - for multiple mods. That's a mess.)

It should also be noted the 'Developer/Mod' structure makes it harder to write MM patches that affect the mods cleanly. (Not impossible, especially with the most recent versions of MM, but more difficult.)