JadeOfMaar

That two-step idea is just what I intend to use to employ a massive soft-deprecation process, actually. At the point of editing craft files and maybe even persistence, it would be handy to have a batch file that you can drop documents onto to change all the important strings in one shot, or further than that, a mod that accepts semicolon-delimited pairs of strings per line <part.oldname;part.newname> or <part.newname;part.oldname> can be triggered at the KSC scene and which uses KSP itself to do the operations. At some point soon™ I'd like to do such a big and save-breaking update for OPT. I know one guy who has epic OCD and would be happy to have a tool like this nearby when such update happens.

OPT Spaceplane Parts.

To target all parts by manufacturer, do this. In MM language, the ? represents a single invalid character at that position (like spaces, and math operators): @PART:HAS[#manufacturer[Brand?Name]] // All branded parts { // stuff } @PART:HAS[#manufacturer[Brand?Name],#category[Engine]] // All of this brand's engines { // stuff } @PART:HAS[#manufacturer[Brand?Name],#title[*Cockpit]] // All of this brand's cockpits { // stuff } Another prominent spaceplane parts mod has the same problem and is horribly plagued by it. This is how I deal with it. To apply that name change (and not properly deprecate parts before this change) will break every craft file made with this mod but is wise and should be done ASAP. (That's on Starlord's shoulders, not yours.) Note that I mean the internal name that identifies the part, what KSP and the mod maker care about, not the part title, what the average player cares about. The title can change without any risk at all. Assuming Filter Extensions is not installed or not configured for this mod, an agency config (it's pretty tiny/easy to do) and optionally but ideally, a logo image (in big and tiny sizes) are required for a mod's parts to be sorted by manufacturer. By consequence, the agency config can enable the manufacturer to appear in contracts in career mode.

SSPXr adapts itself to KPBS' presence already (but only for TAC, not for USI or Snacks!). This behavior existed for a long time. If indeed KPBS brings its own config, then perhaps its dev should say something. Or can I assume that KPBS properly overrides SSPX's config so it's no big deal? I just looked and the config file at that path only adds the SSPX greenhouse experiment to KPBS' own greenhouses.

Correct. The plane body is B9 HX. The SRBs are KW rocketry.

Scatterer configs for v 0.03x break in 0.05x. Pay very close attention to these numbers and download the older scatterer. Then everything will work.

Install this. Then try not to add launch clamps to OPT planes with J inline docking ports or J deploy bay. If you do add clamps afterward and these parts are present, the craft will spawn 999m up, with the clamps (but at least they won't fall after spawning).

Oh yes, you can scoop from atmospheres. NF Propulsion and Karbonite's air filters handle Xenon.

USI Core is the mod that adds just tanks and reactors. I must mention that you can't mine for Xenon. You can only get it: Using Near Future Electric's nuclear reprocessor on DepletedUranium. In WBI and Classic Stock, mining Zeonium and extract from that. Zeonium is a fairly abundant ore of inert gases, and XenonGas becomes very useful if you end up building things with the Flying Saucer's anti-gravity engine or USI Warp Drive. Gold Standard is a very simple parts mod. It will never break.

@XxLedvin25xX When I see the word "remastered" in a title, I expect the overall quality and standards of an artwork (typically audio and/or video) to go up while still, in essence, looking and sounding as it once did. The impression I'm getting here is that this is merely a "Continued" mod and ought to be named "Kerbal Galaxy 2 Continued (or Revived, or Expanded)" and the current use of "remastered" is misinformed and very, very misleading. Unless you're remaking all of the existing Kerbal Galaxy planets' textures to be exact yet 100x better, I highly recommend you remove the word "remastered." In addition, it seems like you have a very long way to go to reach v1.0 so I'd also suggest having your mod moved to the Addon Development board of the forum. To do that, report your own thread and ask for it to be moved. The forum moderators respond well.

Sadly, the way you met it is the way it is, since the original modder disappeared. There are no interactions or conflicts involved.

Definitely. The vast majority of mods need MM. Did you follow the instructions in the download page on GitHub? Did you install CTTP which is required by OPM? Did you install ModularFlightIntegrator which is part of Koperncus? That mod is not optional. Did you get nyancats? (If yes then you did not install Kopernicus for your exact version of KSP.

All of Galileo's releases will work. Planet mods (that use Kopernicus) tend to never break. Just be sure you have the right Kopernicus for your KSP.

The EL Workshop modules are missing? The resource converters are missing? What part? The Hacienda IMF or Castillo Factory? Or something else?

At its core, this is a bad idea (rather, step four is not the way things would go). Resetting the tech tree everywhere you land just adds several redundant heaps of grind. What actually happens is that you land with a bootstrap package (all the tools you need and just enough of every urgently needed resource) to get a small colony growing. Then you use the bootstrap to expand to a sufficient point near to "self-sustaining" (if you're lucky) before anything runs out and you fail (and have to wait for a critical shipment to leave Kerbin and arrive offworld-- or fail and die if any life support mods are present). The issue of changing the tech tree is another topic and another thread. The rest of your idea is good and contains things that should be more easily adopted (but this too is another topic): Life cycles and generations should be a thing (...not just death) with life support mods. USI MKS and Civilian Population are the only mods that provide this, but nobody has made an attempt to expand on these and make their own modlet focused more on generations and less on the other things about those mods that you would not want at this point. A mod for easily designing and deploying large and modular space centers does not exist (you have to kit-bash Extraplanetary Launchpads/Global Construction; Kerbal Konstructs maybe; X+Y+Z base parts mods; and deal with part count and FPS loss).

Well this takes me back. My earliest shuttle for crew rotation was a small Mk2 with 2x J-61 ramjets and the NTR from Mk2 Expansion. It was so OP it would blackout everyone on it (if I knew about the difficulty setting for it and turned it on) and it needed a heatshield on its nose.

@Svm420 Aha! I wondered when someone would ask. That intake is actually in one of my own mods, Deep Sky Core, and painted to look like OPT.

@cakepie Heh. Sorry. I did drop an explicit "disclaimer" my post when I said "so don't take me seriously," with the hope that you would see that I was jesting. I know very well the situation of being bombed and irritated with feature requests. I'm sorry if I legit angered you. It's nice to know you have that kind of protection in place and well in advance for your ideas.

From what I can see (looking at the experiment definition file) the stock science lab is not in the whitelist of parts allowed to run the experiment so the experiment could be breaking due to "unrecognized lab." Install one of the other WBI mods (MOLE, DSEV or Pathfinder) and try this experiment in one of their science lab parts. Finally, unless you have MOLE installed, you should ignore contracts for WBI experiments. The engineer report panel in the VAB will show you (down to 1/10 of a meter) the dimensions of the volume that a part occupies. Once you know that, drop a hexagon spline or whatever in your 3D art app, set its radius, and put it under an extrude object set to the given height. Also, what is "WEAV"? I'm curious.

Not a suggestion or feature request so don't take me seriously but I just NEED to throw this out here: It would be epic if this mod presented an API for life support mods to tap into, and placed an extra icon above kerbals' heads. This icon could easily shift between many colors, or several icons could appear as various negative (or positive) statuses occurred. This would be most useful to habitation mods that do add many negative statuses like Kerbalism, Kerbal Health and USI. You could then tell at a glance who ate the last of their snacks (or had their bathroom moment) and is on EVA too long, or who's been poisoned by space radiation or otherwise. Anyone who has played The Sims will understand.

@GraczNet Lite Blue reduces or removes most of the working features of Pathfinder for that "stock game experience." It's not well developed, I think, as high demand for it may not have been expected, thee isn't much to do or care about when the stock resource catalog is so narrow, and it's not the favorite play mode of myself or Angel-125. Classic Stock is either: Complex to a degree but not as high a degree as MKS. Pathfinder does not contain habitation effects, requirements for a dozen+ kerbal traits for things to work, does not contain part maintenance (Well that's actually there but only relevant when you add BARIS), does not contain "Touristification" (crew turning into tourists when they starve. Snacks! makes kerbals un-controllable and optionally makes them die; but doesn't change them into tourists). As complex as MKS, only with regard to the width of its feature-set and the opportunities you can exploit to make things work the way you like (even including the option to switch to Lite Blue play mode, and an in-game cheats window). All modules are straightforward and opportunities to read what something does are quite abundant in-game. There's no regimented scheme for balancing a part's mass and functionality, only a scheme for regulating storeable amounts of a resource for a given tank's volume. If you need more help you can ping me (as far as I'm useful ), Angel, or anyone who frequents this thread and shows pictures of huge bases.

I assume that by "stacking" you actually mean clipping: In this case, having a functional part buried within another functional part to simulate a combined effect while visibly saving space. Have you considered the following? I don't see any hope in this challenge.

Of course it will.