Tyko

Yea, I've been using 50% for a while. It makes it a bit more challenging than stock, but very playable. If you really want to have fun, don't do any KSC science except for the launch pad and the runway - no building a rover and driving from building to building collecting science

How do you remove Grannus?

Pressure limits could be interesting if parts were differentiated by heavier / more advanced parts with higher pressure limits. In a system where all parts have the same pressure limit it's probably better to decide whether a body is meant to be landed on or not and then adjust the planet's pressure curve to be survivable.

I added @DMagic's mod and then cut my science returns down to 50%. It's a pretty good balance. I know it's kind of a self-defeating solution from a points perspective. For me though it was more about having more types of science to perform and having more cool sciency parts to add to my ship

For those of you open to mods, StageRecovery enables you to set up stages to recover by parachute even outside physics range. I believe it basically shortcuts the landing process by asking "does this booster have enough parachutes to land safely?". If 'Yes' then the stage counts as recovered. Not nearly as cool as landing them yourself, but another option.

Are there plans to make TWP compatible with Kronometer to support scaled systems? Or, is there a way I can change to day length myself? I'm running 2.5x with a 10 hour day. Thanks!

This is a great solution because only your first flight needs to take a lander. The follow-on missions take spare lander fuel instead and keep reusing the same lander.

I'm not sure if this is the same issue. The problem I'm seeing is that 1 out of 3 symmetrically attached solar panels appears to be tracking Grannus instead of Ciro. When i'm on the dark side of Gael, but have a Line of Sight to Grannus that one solar panel shows it's still receiving 0.97 Sun Exposure but 0 power output. You can see in the picture below that the top panel is tracking Grannus while the other two are facing forward towards Ciro. UPDATE: I confirmed that removing Grannus caused all the solar panels to reorient on Ciro. unfortunately changing Grannus.cfg to Grannus.txt broke something else because Gael is completely black now. A black sphere with white clouds. I'll revert Grannus back to a cfg file for the moment. Can you please tell me what I need to do to safely remove Grannus until the Kopernicus bug can be fixed?

There are mods called "Kerbal Atomics" and "Cryogenic Engines" by @Nertea that do pretty much exactly what you asked for...cryo engines, cryo fuel tanks, more nukes and a switch to Hydrogen for fuel. Enjoy!

I'll take a shot at the atmosphere launches for 2.5x to begin with. Once I've gotten a system down I can look at covering the other scales as well. I'm a bit intimidated by Tellumo - especially at 6.4x and 10x scales Sounds like I have a weekend project Do you have the target altitudes above atmosphere determined already?

@Galileo moving to 1.5.0 solved the problems. The sky still occasionally screws up and I have to do a scene change. Beyond that I'm happily sailing along at 2.5x Question - would you be willing to share the EPS version of your DV subway map? I'd like to run the calculations to make one for 2.5x and I'm happy to share the results

Thanks, but i don't have KSCSwitcher or Sigma installed. This is just a standard GPP install. The install I described above included a complete new download of KSP and I downloaded fresh copies of every mod. I included the versions of all the mods - did any of those look incorrect? I've done it twice now and scatterer is altering the sky in some way that's persistent even if I remove scatterer and relaunch..I'm not really aware of how the presence of Scatterer could be making a change that persists even when Scatterer is uninstalled - I was hoping there's be a clue in there that would help solve this. I've done the entire setup twice with the same results. I appreciate your help, but not sure how doing it a third time will fix anything? Thanks!

Thanks, but that didn't work. Just to be sure I'm creating an entirely new install of KSP/GPP (which I've done a few times before). I have a new issue triggered by the install of Scatterer. I installed KSP 1.3.0, GPP 1.4.0, GPP Textures 2.0.0, Kopernicus 1.3.0-4, Modular Flight Integrator, MM 2.8.1 and launched for the first time. No issues. Next I installed GPP clouds (high res) and EVE 1.2.2.1 and launched a second time. No issues the clouds looked great. I then added Scatterer in and suddenly the starscape shines brightly through the daytime sky. I tried deleting Scatterer, but something else has been corrupted because even after I remove scatterer my sky doesn't go back to normal. Now the daytime sky isn't blue anymore, it's just a starscape with the sun showing. This is daytime now: Thanks for your help!

Hi, I just tried to use the latest ReScale 2.5, I'm not using Kerbal Konstructs. Many of the launch sites are below ground now.

I've completed an Equipment Container to work with @Starwaster's Procedural Parts mod. Please take a look and let me know if there's anything I should tweak. When I match them up with equal sized BARIS containers I get cost and volume exact. The dry weight is a bit off, but it's really close.

Not entirely true. The Earth used to have a 12 hour day and it's slowing a bit every year

wow...well done! great way solution

I have games in both Stock and 2.5x. I like 2.5x because the rockets required look and perform a lot more like real world rockets using stock parts and mods balanced for stock. I've gotten to really push designs and make hard choices on weight to achieve missions. I like Stock because I can "play" a lot, build really large, complex designs and launch them relatively easily. I also prefer Stock for the shorter launch and re-entry periods. I feel like so much time is spent (especially early game) on launches and watching re-entries. With scaled up solar systems it take a lot longer to complete those tasks meaning I'm spending LOT of time watching craft launch and re-entering.

Agreed 100% ...

Thanks for this. I'd tweaked it myself and found that the dockingPort2 needs a little more room otherwise it looks like they're clipping. here's the numbers I landed on: @PART[dockingPort2]:NEEDS[VenStockRevamp] { @node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.264, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1 }

One more question I need help on...I've got everything tweaked correctly except the dry mass. I tried a bunch of different mass numbers and even zeroed it out, but I'm still getting the exact same dry mass. Is there some global factor that's over-riding the mass in the config file? Any help would be really appreciated...here's the config I'm working on with the mass currently set to zero

Thanks! Feel free to bundle that config into your mod. I'm also working on a procedural parts container I'm currently only using BARIS and appreciate the simplicity of a standalone download

Wow, I'm really excited to dig into this! I built a quick MM config to add a smallish toolkit of Equipment to command pods...Not sure if 100 units is the right amount to allow quick simple repairs. @Angel-125, what would you think should be a good number for a small toolkit stored in a pod? // Adds limited BARIS Equipment (per kerbal seat) to Command Modules // Ignores parts that already have Equipment values declared @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand],!RESOURCE[Equipment],#CrewCapacity[>0]]:NEEDS[BARIS] { RESOURCE { name= Equipment maxAmount = 100 @maxAmount *= #$/CrewCapacity$ amount = #$maxAmount$ } }

@Starwaster. I'm looking for help configuring a new container type and getting the Volume & Mass numbers right. It's a procedural Equipment container for @Angel-125 new BARIS mod. I'm modeling the Procedural version after his 2.5 meter container which has the following the following parameters Dry Mass: 0.25 Wet Mass: 5.25 Units of Equipment = 2000 Mass / Unit of Equipment = 2.5 Could I get some help in getting the TankContentSwitcher numbers correct? I'm not sure I understand what dryDensity does, and I think that's my problem. <SNIP relevant parts from config file> mass = 0.25 ??? I think this is correct MODULE { name = TankContentSwitcher useVolume = true TANK_TYPE_OPTION { name = Equipment dryDensity = 0.1 ??? I'm not sure what to put here RESOURCE { name = Equipment unitsPerT = 400 ??? This seems pretty straightforward as 2.5 x 400 = 1 Ton, but could very well be wrong too. } } } EDIT: I think if figured it out...i switched from unitsPerT to unitsPerKL and it seems to work. Here's how it looks now. MODULE { name = TankContentSwitcher useVolume = true TANK_TYPE_OPTION { name = Equipment dryDensity = 0.102 RESOURCE { name = Equipment unitsPerKL = 652 forceEmpty = true } } } Thanks!

Yea. I set out to do an atlas style drop. This turned out to work better. It's also scalable. I've built versions with 2,3 and 4 Thuds.