AngrybobH

Ah. I think I get it now. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction.

Ok. Thank you. I'm trying to do some of my own debugging which includes learning just about everything I need to know about modding this game. Any suggestions on why this file gets an error? // Interstellar Fuel Switch support @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[InterstellarFuelSwitch],!MODULE[GPOSpeedPump]]:FOR[GPOSpeedFuelPump]:FINAL { MODULE { name = GPOSpeedPump } } // Firespitter fuel switch support @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[FSfuelSwitch],!MODULE[GPOSpeedPump]]:FOR[GPOSpeedFuelPump]:FINAL { MODULE { name = GPOSpeedPump } } // B9 fuel switch support @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleB9PartSwitch],!MODULE[GPOSpeedPump]]:FOR[GPOSpeedFuelPump]:AFTER[zzz_CryoTanks]:FINAL { MODULE { name = GPOSpeedPump } }

I am trying to go through all my installed mods that have errors starting with GPOSpeedpump because it has a bunch of errors. The quote above leads me to believe that changing a [*] to a ,* would likely fix a line like: @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[InterstellarFuelSwitch],!MODULE[GPOSpeedPump]]:FOR[GPOSpeedFuelPump]:FINAL if I change it to: @PART,*:HAS[@MODULE[InterstellarFuelSwitch],!MODULE[GPOSpeedPump]]:FOR[GPOSpeedFuelPump]:FINAL Am I correct?

I diagnosed 12 errors from the new Module Manager 3.0.1 for several hours. Diagnosis revealed the best course of action is to revert to 2.8.1. Some of the mods I "need" have stopped updating at KSP 1.3.0 (and MM 2.8.1) and I don't want to do something crazy like adopt them.

This is one of my favorite mods but, I had to uninstall because of the problem defined by @MKev . I am not sure when it started but it was working with 1.3.1. I change mods somewhat often, hard to nail down when the problem occurred. Also, earlier in the thread it was mentioned to not install with CKAN. What is the reason for this? I prefer CKAN to manual installations (even if it is really slow to get updates) because I use a lot of mods and change mods often.

Modular fuel tanks has a newer version I got from the thread for that mod (i don't know why CKAN doesn't have it) and installed fuel wings manually.

I rarely get a kraken attack but when I do my CPU and GPU are at max overclock and my available system memory is ~0MB. Yes KSP and 70+ mods can consume all of my resources.

I had a bunch of tourist contracts and decided I do one big mission with them all. Loaded up 15 passengers and 4 crew into my 3rd gen space bus, the HS3-2e (dark blue in picture). Destinations were an oncoming asteroid (for tourists and divert mission), a mun flyby, and a minmus flyby. because of positions I had to go to the mun first. I wasted a bit too much dV messing with the asteroid and ended up with enough fuel to make minmus but not really enough to get home safely and there wasn't enough O2 for a free return. I had to send Val in the space tanker to minmus to wait for them. Everyone lived and both planes still had wings when they stopped on the runway, so I guess it worked out fine, but someone in mission planning probably needs fired.

I realized today that I have never gone to the abandoned space center. So I threw Val in an old suborbital science plane and took a ride. I forgot how nice this plane flies. It cruises at mach 1.6 and a max of mach wingsflyoff(north of 1200m/s before wing and/or engine failure) plus I can set the autopilot with time warp at max without wobbles.

If you play with the space Y parts, you find out very quickly that low ISP/High thrust is worth something. One of the early space Y engines in career mode has 965 KN, an ISP of 265(298vac), and only weighs something like 3 tons(plus a toggle for 1.25 or 2.5m). It's hard to use the stock engines when you have those.

The Vector is my most used engine. I put a lot of strange shaped things into orbit and when drag is high, MOAR thrust is the answer. Well, not the only answer but the one I prefer.

B9 procedural wings. It says it's not compatible with 1.3.1 and CKAN won't install it but, I manually put it in and it works fine. I prefer procedural parts and wings to the stock stuff, mainly because I need to keep the parts count down. The main lifting wings are each 3 pieces with their own coloring and the vertical stabilizers are 2 pieces each. The white squares on the back of the wings are airbrakes from....hmmm...I think KSPI-E. I not really sure, I have 70+ mods installed.

I like it. It's a sweet ride. I can't seem to make designs with wide wings and short length work out. They are always too unstable when pitching. In my current career game I tried something similar but scrapped the idea in favor of something longer. When I got the Wheesley engine, I upgraded my basic design to this ~40 part science plane. Perhaps I'll go back and see if I can make my earlier design fly.

I finally got a spaceplane/lander combo working that can fly AND land. The lander is low on TWR but it works well enough. Landing is a bit more exiting than I would like and most of the time it still has wings when coming to a stop.

Mechjeb has a differential throttle setting(in the utilities menu) for use with 2 or more engines. I usually fly spaceplanes with 3-4 engines staggered above and below the CoM aligned so with differential off there is a slight pitch up to help raise the nose off the runway. I then turn differential throttle on when the air gets thin and my planes will fly straight when in space. Of course, this only helps when you have 2 or more engines on different sides of the CoM but, it does continuously adjust for fuel usage.

I use a transfer vehicle that is fueled from mining outposts. It's basically just a collection of trusses with a probe core, a bunch of docking ports and some engines. I then launch multiple rockets and space planes with all the mission equipment. The crew goes up last in the return vehicle to complete the sometimes 1000+ part lagfest. I use probes to refuel the transfer vehicle and send it back whenever it has sufficient dV to get back home.

This is the direction of the industry but, it does not have to be a bad experience. Unfortunately, we have far more examples of "recurrent consumer spending" gone wrong (EA) than we do gone right. Done right, a company produces a great game that is fun and then produces things for that game that the average player is willing to spend money on. When wrong, we get broken, stripped down games that require paid DLC to even complete. I don't think that means much for KSP other than possibly more DLC. I have over 1200 hours in this game and I am more than willing to give up a couple of dollars for something interesting. If this is the model than I am fine with "recurrent consumer spending".