DStaal

Yep. Either of the Pioneer modules - there's one in both the Duna and Tundra form factors.

From what I've read, having the full version have a 'don't check' or 'only check when I ask' setting might be a good idea. It would allow people to override and quiet the mini's screens.

Pretty much - it hasn't changed much in how it works. Since the mobile launchpad has been removed, you can keep the launchpads from EL as well. Though you might want to take a look at Keridian Dynamics (not sure if it's been updated - but the main section of it is just a parts pack) - it's got much nicer parts for EL. (Including a great replacement for the stakes and mallet.)

Yeah - CKAN doesn't fail well. If something isn't working, always try a manual install to make sure it's not a CKAN issue first.

I said 'less likely'. I'm sure there were a few who noticed, and updated, and then didn't complain...

Don't use it myself, but I can see it as a tactic to help reduce support overhead. People are less likely to complain about bugs in old versions if they're greeted by a reminder that they're using an old version every time they start up.

I was talking about thinking it takes different resources to print a kit using an OSE workshop than an MKS workshop - because MKS includes a patch to change something about the resources used to print something. (Though I'm not sure if that's true in OSE's case - I haven't looked. I know MKS includes a patch to change what you need to build something with EL.) And yes, those are what I was referring to in my other post: That there's a limit to how large a particular workshop can print. I'm not entirely sure that limit is still in effect, but I don't find OSE useful for things much larger than a Kerbal can carry in the first place.

Like EL, the resources used to print a part are not configured in the workshop, but in the DLL. Any workshop will use the same recipe to build the same part, and have limitations based on the same rules. (I honestly don't understand the line of thinking that supposes building something with one workshop is different than building it with another, but I've seen multiple people thinking both EL and OSE have to be configured on a per-workshop basis.)

Part disassembly is a good source in that it's a convenient source - but that is because you likely have some parts that aren't useful once you've landed on the surface. It is not a good source in terms of mass/fuel used to get the MaterialKits in place, as it is lossy: You get less mass of MaterialKits than the part you disassembled had. (So you can't disassemble something and then remake it using OSE - you'll won't have enough materials.) At one point I remember there being some talk of OSE printers being possibly limited in the volume they can print - independent of the volume of the containers attached. I don't believe that's implemented at the moment, but I'm not sure. Regardless, I find that printing a base - while theoretically possible - is very difficult. First off, the largest KIS container I'm aware of is the 5m Kontainer - so anything larger than that you don't even have a way to print in the first place. (And remember the storage does have to be attached to the same vessel as is doing the printing.) Secondly, you then have to take it out of the KIS storage and put it someplace - and there are KIS limits on moving large/heavy parts. (Though there are ways around that.) Thirdly, I find OSE printing to be fairly slow, so it's often faster to ship and complete a DIY container than to print all the parts for the ship. And lastly of course, you can impose on yourself a personal limitation. Nothing that won't fit in a Kerbal's inventory or suchlike. No. OSE ships some parts that have the printing modules, and MKS has some parts with the OSE printing modules in the config. (But just having the modules in the config doesn't do anything without the mod.)

Yep, he's using MKT to stand for Material Kits. (I tend to use just MK.) OSE lets you build parts (not whole ships - just single parts) on-site, in special workshops - MKS has some parts that are configured as those workshops. (It also includes some very large KIS containers - which means you can build very large parts.) That functionality is only available if you have OSE installed. It's nice if you need another flex-o-tube or something to complete a base. GC is an offworld construction mod - and MKS is about building bases off-world, so you're expected to want to do some off-world construction. The only real difference between the bundled GC and the full GC is that the full GC includes it's own workshop (and resource storage/conversion) parts. MKS has it's own, so CG's aren't needed. (And GC's need a couple of other dependencies, which was starting to create a long dependency chain, and there were some interactions between GC's dependencies and other mods that people like that RoverDude didn't need to deal with.) No differences is what's possible - just differences in parts.

A quick test says that copying over the stock docking ports works - I had to change the line for the model replacement as well, but other than that no problem. And yeah, what I wanted was a consistent visual experience - why I noticed it in the first place. The angle-snap is fairly straightforward - they offer a slider in the right-click menu that allows you to choose an angle for angle-snap docking (where they can only dock if at specific angles to each other) and a button to turn angle-snap docking on or off. The slider is irrelevant as far as Indicator Lights go (well, if someone wanted a *really* complex implementation which lit up which angles are allowed, that might be fun - but that's more work than I think necessary), the only thing really relevant is the button to turn it on/off: If it's off on both ports, they can dock at any angle to each other. If it's on on both ports, they can dock at the specific angles selected. If it's on on one, and off on the other, then they can't dock. The part module is here: https://github.com/BobPalmer/Konstruction/blob/master/Source/Konstruction/Konstruction/ModuleWeldablePort.cs - I'm assuming it's all in lines 82+83.

There is one in the Planetary Base pack already.

The parts are literally a retexture - same models as the stock docking ports, slightly desaturated texture so that they're visually distinguishable. Why I think it'd be easy to do them. As for functionality - same as other docking ports: Some orientation indication, and docking state. I may play around and see if I can cue a boolean indicator off of whether it's in angle-snap mode or not. (They can be set to angle-snap into any angle, if desired. It would be nice to know the state, as both docking ports must be in the same state to dock.) Their main unique function - the ability to be 'compressed' out of existence, permanently joining the two vessels - isn't really something an indicator light would touch.

Quick question: I was thinking about making indicator light configs for USI's 'construction ports' and wanted to know where you wanted them. The parts themselves are a retexture of the stock docking ports, so the configs should be just 'copy the docking ports config and change the part name'. (Which could obviously be done by adding it to the stock ports configs as well...)

My impression of course on 'most'. Typically a new mod coming out will not have CLS support - but will quickly add it in if you're willing to create the patch for them. I try to be somewhat selective in what mods I install, so I only have ~160 mods. Fair enough - I basically thought of the concern as I was typing and wanted to bring it up. I do really like the idea of a weight penalty. (Though now I want to be able to specify it in the MM config, if non-default... My thought is something like NFC's octo-girder probe core would basically need some aluminum foil, but other parts not designed for it might need more.)

I have at least two engines that are passable, as set in the manufacturer's config. Of course, both are engines with a ring of nozzles around a central tube - the tube is passable. I don't mind the idea of adding an option to tweak any part's passibility. On the other hand, I think that might reduce the number of people who ship CLS patches with their mods - at the moment, if I have a part that needs passibility I'll write a patch and typically I'll pass it along as a PR. If it was just a switch to turn on passibility in each part, I suspect a lot of times 'official' support would be forgotten and the default response to be 'just turn on passibility in that part'. Path of least resistance and all that. Honestly, *most* mods have good support for CLS at this point - and I've even talked one author to include a patch that set passible to false so that you could switch that part in the VAB if you wanted to. (Since it looked passible, but probably wasn't designed for it.) If you have to look for the .cfg file after searching - or are searching for the name of the config file - then Windows doesn't do what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting to look in the *contents* of the config files for the part name in the game - which should get you the name and path of the cfg file. (And even if it does do it natively, it might be worth taking a look at a program that gets you better/easier to use results. I know MacOS's find can in theory do this for instance - but isn't very good at it, so I typically use BBEdit's search instead.)

It's not possible yet. RoverDude has said he's working on a way that meets his vision.

If I'm running the math right, you'll be close to the edge of what one JX2 can reach - depending on what you mean by 'about'. A bit under and it should be able to reach. A bit over, and you'll definitely need to combine them. Right on - and it will depend on your planetary alignments. I'd say it'd be suitable therefore. It'll be a bit of work, but you should be able to manage.

Be aware that RoverDude keys off of the manufacturer name for his custom categories - if you change the name, those categories won't work anymore. I don't know if any other mod uses the manufacturer for anything in specific - but it's possible.

You might want to give more than a holiday weekend since the release before giving up. Heck, I don't even have access to 1.3 yet - I didn't by it through Steam or Squad, and it hasn't hit my platform yet. (Of course @jandcando's last post on the topic was fairly open on it not being a priority to him - but he could change his mind, or someone could pick this mod up if they wanted.)

Nothing on the restart - though I don't often do dedicated restarts for CLS patches. For the search - I haven't done much in Win 10 myself (or Windows in general), but a program like this: https://www.mythicsoft.com/agentransack will help with the search. (Again, I haven't used that one specifically, but the general concept is to find a search program that allows recursively searching entire folders, and that was the first I found for Windows.) Set up a search on all your GameData folders, and then search for the part title as you see it in-game. Then I usually just copy over a working patch I've already written and edit the part name.

I think it's just a visibility thing: The pack just works, rarely needs updates, etc. so it doesn't get talked about much. (Heck, the thread right now has a necro warning - for a mod that works in 1.2.2!) Therefore it doesn't get pulled up to the top of the threads list, and therefore people don't see it. I mostly just don't want you stepping on it, as I like their icons better - and you have icons for some of the same things.

Just spotted this, and like the idea. I'll be waiting for CLS compatibility, but I’m looking forward to it.

I've been using these icons and like them a fair amount.

Best to take this over to the MKS thread, since they'll have the best info on it. Likely they'll ask to see a picture of the vessel, so they can see your radiator setup...