enlait

I updated DMSA and FS to latest versions (0.19 and 7.6.0), and the game worked! It is indeed a problem with outdated dependencies. Thank you guys!

It doesn't work for me in 1.3.1 (game crashes when loading parts) but with amount of mod's I'm running I can't say for sure... Deleting "Coatl Aerospace" and keeping everything else makes the game work again.

maybe decrease non-upgraded version ISP more (330?), and upgrade in bigger steps. maybe decrease thrust, so that engine would have worse TWR - that won't affect dV does it really have to be over 350? Please do that ^^

That was pretty much my point. On the other hand, if you have 10% more ISP and an engine weights the same but is 20% weaker, it is still better for 100% orbital maneuvers, and you can actually decrease mass by saving on fuel and tanks. This is why I consider an engine with 355 ISP and 13 TWR overpowered.

I think rather then dry mass, ISP gets more important the mode dV you're trying to squeeze. So no matter how small your payload is, ISP will be important if you try to launch it far enough. And this is why that 48-7S is mostly useful for short powerful bursts (landing/takeoff). Balance-wise there's also a thing with Jib weighting the same, and having same ISP as stock puff, while having 4 times less power. @akron I think I got an issue here, though I can't say whether some other mod is involved... but CA-A100 does not seem to work as relay when upgraded. Changed the non-upgraded type to relay and viola - my comm net is up. Is changing antenna type by upgrade legit?

This particular part sounds interesting. It seems to be provided by Real Fuels mod, too bad it's not 1.2 yet. Anyway, thanks for the tip!

Good day. I'm not familiar with KSP modding, so here I'm looking for advice. I'm playing with a lot of mods, and some are adding monopropellant engines, and I see two different approaches to those: either modders make them efficient with ISP on par with LFO engines (~330 and more) or balance against vanilla to have about 250 ISP. In first case, they end up unrealistically effective and there's little distinction between LFO and monoprop engines. In the second, they just end up fairly useless. As I understand it, IRL monopropellant engines are used because of their simplicity, and because they can be fired many times. LFO engines, on the other hand, are made for continuous propulsion. So, my idea is, is it possible to mod LFO engines (case by case, or all at once) to be unusable for fine maneuvers, for example to put a lower bound on thrust or firing time? That would justify monoprop OMS engines and make them viable. UPD I tried tweaking some random stuff on engine modules, and while minThrust kinda does part of what I wanted, it is bit too unwieldy to start up / shut down engines, so I tried other configurables, but so far I couldn't get most of these https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/api/class_module_engines.html to work, like flameoutBar, throttleMin, ignitionThreshold, etc Stuped me, what I needed was Real Fuels. Cant find delete button tho

I'm not sure if that has been asked before; but why do lahar and linkor LFO engines have such high ISP? 345 starting ISP is already enough to make all other small stock engines obsolete, and 355 after upgrades is higher than any LFO engine of any size. Other mods I have (eg SpaceY, RLA, MRS) also take those number as a baseline: 345 ISP is considered a "highly optimized" LFO engine, and 350 is a cap for LFO propulsion. On a side note, I understand why monoprop engines (jib and trident) have low ISP realistically, but they are also heavier than their two-component fuel competitors, so they seem kinda useless...

@leomikeI don't dislike idea of malfunctions altogether, but it somehow did not work for me. Actually, I just got an idea. What bothered me about malfunction mechanic was that stuff breaks mercilessly on interplanetary timescale, but just decreasing malfunction chance would make it too unlikely Kerbin-scale, and having many missions sucks because stuff breaks just as much in background. And logically speaking, why does stuff break so much in the first place, when it's not even used? So, maybe bring that background malfunction chance down by a lot (malfunctions caused by radiation) and introduce a chance of malfunction when a module is used instead, or something happens (like fiery atmospheric landing). Though I'm not quite sure how to handle modules that are used passively (solars) or continuously (refinery, reactors, lab, etc). But the general idea is to break more when it's active and less when it's just a space brick of hardware. That would make malfunctions less tied to the actual time and more to "events" on the mission.

After playing a while with Kerbalism, and ending up going away from it, I hope I can help somehow by providing feedback, even if it's not all praise. First of all, @ShotgunNinja thank you for you hard work and impressive result. I certainly don't consider my time playing KSP with Kerbalism wasted, I did enjoy it quite. A little background: I started playing with Kerbalism about when it was released, because coincidentally at the time I decided to with some life support mod (and maybe more hardcore stuff to boot) in order to somehow compensate for mobile lab being a bit too OP. I don't quite buy the idea of playing without mobile lab altogether, because you know, stations are awesome, and I'm too practical to have stations just for looks. And I was disappointed with station science mod. Soo, I stumbled across Kerbalism, and while it has some minor bugs it was awesome. I didn't start a new career back then though, and had a lot of advantage, even if some kerbals on the missions rapidly unscheduledly kicked the bucket because of LS requirements kicking in.. Well, as the time went by I had some issues here and there, and this weekend I decided to start a new career after all, taking in account the stuff I learned about Kerbalism, and tweaking some settings here and there to better suit what I'd like gameplay-wise. I ended up removing Kerbalism altogether and going with TAC-LS (and some other mods of course), because, as I was switching off features, I realized there's little left of Kerbalism I actually wanted in a new game. Here were my concerns, in no particular order: game performance suffers somewhat, there's very slight, but constant stutter it does not always play well with other mods, because these mods are balanced for vanilla, and Kerbalism rebalances some stuff. For example solar panels. So one has to make patches. There are compatibility patches bundled for some mods, but even these are not perfect, for example near future solars ec/weight/cost ratios are kinda inconsistent (they are not scaled as of latest versions, and instead have coded replacement values). It is not really hard to make patches, but overall it's a work, either for players or modders (or you) and begs the question - why was it even needed to rescale solars in the first place? Why not change ec only consumption values instead, main culprits here being life support, resource converter and ion engines, as far as I see it (and you scale engines' ec consumption anyway). Even if some consumer is not rescaled, I imagine it would average to a lesser effect compared to poorly scaled ec generation. There was the same issue with LS resources, but that one you did fix. malfunction mechanic, while fun at first, was most detrimental to gameplay. It makes strong point of having an engineer (which is nice) but: it makes unmanned long-range missions WAY too much pain. By the time a probe reaches some planet it is broken heavily, even worse if it's a lander and it can no longer land it makes skipping time (interplanetary travel / waiting for a good launch window) painful if I have ongoing missions, because stuff just rots, so I ended up having a lot of missions simultaneously, with poor launching schedule and ETA times and so on and these two points resonate with each other heavily. I could not wait for good interplanetary launch conditions because my other stuff would rot and I ended up with much longer approach routes which resulted in my missions failing even worse because of malfunctions there's also build quality, which adds to "I'd rather stay home" because by the time one would reasonably send an interplanetary mission, build quality is sub-par. insanity mechanic is pretty much the same thing but for kerbals, it has less effect within Kerbin SOI because rotating crew is not that hard, but overall prevents skipping time. radiation mechanic... again. And this one can result in kerbals dying without one having reasonable expectations, so it's kinda scary. How many storms will I have on a route to Jool? Who knows. Too scary. I'd better send a probe first, but oh wait, even if I make it a hedgehog of antennas all of them will break anyway. as a result, it seems the least painful way would be to only have at most one mission at a time. And no stations to housekeep :/ I am afraid I don't have good ideas to offer on how to make all of the stuff work. Well, maybe making some parts more "delicate" (science stuff) and other more resilient, maybe add a possibility of remote repair (software fix) with a chance of irreversible and complete failure.

There was a lot of bullcrap here. I updated to 0.9.9.5 by copying over, and seems like patches were applied twice (because rules were moved around).