Chilkoot

Hi folks - I'm trying to get a WOLF resource system up and running on Minmus, but am unable to progress past the initial depot. I've landed the depot modules and biomes are showing up in the WOLF dashboard now. The problem is setting up any kind of production - WOLF won't permit me to connect modules unless all requirements are met (shown in the planner). The problem is that to get to a state where I can harvest something, the web of interdependencies requires ~20 modules to be landed at the same time. Am I missing something here? I've read through the docs on GitHub, but am quite stuck trying to spin up any kind of WOLF resource collection or production outside of Kerbin.

Understood, and thanks. I had it in my head the Methane fuel type was introduced by this mod, so I'll go digging around with the USI folks.

Hi folks - I'm trying to find a way to get Nertea's methane resource to participate in Bob Palmer's "USI Warehouse" framework for local and global storage. I'd like to either have the methane resource show up in one of Bob's "Kontainer Tank" containers, or have one of Nertea's tanks participate in the USI warehousing. Can this be done with a patch file in my GameData dir? Or is this something that would require deep edits of the USI resource system to work? Apologies if this is like asking, "How do I build a car?". I'm not scared of editing configs, just not sure where to begin. Also, huge thanks to Nertea for maintaining this amazing mod over the years. It's always right at the top of my "must have" list

Anyone know if there's a way to get methane (from Nertea's mods) into the USI warehousing system? I'd like to use local/planetary logistics to manage methane stocks, but I don't see Nertea's cryo fuel (LCH4) as an option in Bob's Kontainer Tanks, and Nertea's tanks don't participate in USI Warehouse. Any leads appreciated - not scared of diving into configs as necessary, but not smart enough to deconstruct and figure out what needs to go where.

I've just installed this mod (awesome, and fixes a major problem I've been having), however autostrut has disappeared from all of my parts in the VAB. I've tried disabling the autostrut tweak via the .cfg file, but still no dice. Has anyone encountered this? Is there a known workaround? Also want to say thanks to the people responsible for maintaining this bundle of fixes! EDIT: I'm an idiot. It's under the "Part" drop down menu in the same right-click interface, and I just didn't see for lack of not looking hard enough.

This works!! Thanks so much for pointing this out. The Mining Guild of Thalia will be able to feed their children again.

I've been scouring for a resolution to this, but no luck. Has anyone found a workaround?

RSS is a pretty rewarding experience, though unforgiving compared to the stock game or popular system overhauls like Galileo. One of the most memorable KSP experiences for me at least was finally landing on the Moon in RSS/Career mode with full life support enabled and at real-world scale. Shaving every 0.01t possible from your launch system/life support and making every kilo of karolox count gives you a better appreciation for how whitewashed the difficulty in stock KSP is. Life support is also an interesting topic... we know there is (or was) planned some form of life support in KSP 2, but only at the base/outpost level as far as we heard. It certainly adds a whole new dimension to gameplay, though it's definitely not for everyone as it seriously neuters warp and makes concurrent missions stressful to manage.

I'm running this mod on a 1.12.2 install (fresh) and it's working fine so far. Not sure how it reacts with older saves.

I'd love the option to start in a *new* system - akin to say, Galileo's PP - with the original Kerbol system as something you can discover, travel to, and then find relics of the "old" Kerbal civilization scattered amongst the celestial bodies. As much as I love Mün, Duna, Laythe, etc., I'm still scratching my head over the decision to base this new title in the same setting as KSP 1. It would also be interesting to have an education version (or option) set in the real solar system with correct scale, ISP, dV requirements, etc. I can see a pretty strong licensing market for this in the primary-12 educational sector - a good channel sales director would likely recover the development costs pretty quickly. Why stop at teaching orbital mechanics when you can incorporate real-world celestial bodies and exogeology? Sure this can be modded in eventually, but no school board is going to to bite on a software package that requires community-maintained mods and constant maintenance for a classroom tool.

And even 4 years after going fairly mainstream, many aspects of VR UI's are still not really settled, driving home how difficult it is to really get these things right and feeling natural. We've kind of progressed from "no man's land" to "wild west", but even core mechanics like inventory management, object interaction and locomotion are still not nearly as settled as the analogous systems in established pancake genres like FPS or RTS. Nate's been playing it coy on VR support in KSP 2, with - as far as I'm aware - the most recent response being "We'll see". With so many different views and interfaces (VAB, EVA, In-Flight, Map, Tech tree, KSC overview, etc), it's probably unrealistic to expect VR support in KSP 2 on day one, though it would also be pretty short-sighted to not keep it on the table for a future release. Off-topic, an even bigger bugbear in VR game and media design is story telling. There is no "Five C's of Cinematography" for VR, being an entirely new medium. In 2015, at VR content developers' conferences, over 50% of the keynotes were related to storytelling challenges. It was the same in 2020. Directors are still trying to figure out how to tell a story in VR in a consistent and engaging way (though there has at least been some progress). We have really strong and established methods to do this when a person is staring at a rectangle filled with images, none of which really carry over to a fully interactive environment where we don't control the camera.

For anyone running 1.11.0: GPP breaks the tourist and rescue missions in Career mode. Fix is to remove the GPP_Renamer folder within the GameData/GPP tree. Something with the custom names is causing Kerbals to disappear from the roster or randomly populate seats in ships. If you're mid-game, you'll need to decline/abandon all missions with any named Kerbals and re-acquire them. Otherwise GPP appears to be working fine using the Kopernicus bleeding-edge release for 1.11.0 NB: Having already-renamed Kerbals in your bullpen won't cause any problems, it just affects new contracts and your ability to complete them.

OK, thanks. I had a look and didn't see anything regarding the 2020 findings so far. Do you have any more info on why it's inaccurate? The process described in the Nature article seems to jive with the content. EDIT: Just realized you may be suggesting the Nature article may be inaccurate as well. Not sure what paper/s the YT content creator specifically used, as it was a very public-accessible overview.

Not sure if this has made the rounds yet, but here's a layman-level summary (YouTube) of some recent metallic hydrogen developments. TL;DW: The Silvera/Dias results from 2017 are losing acceptance, as it now seems they did not successfully (at least not demonstrably) create metallic hydrogen in their experiment. Their projections related to the lack of metastability are probably moot - not proven wrong, just not substantiated experimentally A French team appears to have created testable, real, metallic hydrogen that behaves as models predict The jury is still very much out on whether metastability of the solid/metallic form is possible. There are links to more research in the video details, but here is the Nature article if you want to give it a read.

The Xenon-based engines in KSP 1 would fall into the magnetoplasmadynamic bucket, and I wouldn't be surprised to see those make an appearance in KSP 2 for lightweight probes, etc. There appear to be magnetically propelled plasma-type engines in the trailer and other vids, but not sure if we've heard anything specific about xenon/argon/litium/etc propellants yet.

OK, apologies for the snark there. I thought that snippet would shed a bit of light on what you were asking. My understanding from reading and watching the various interviews (too many times) is that there will no longer be separate science and career modes - which is what I meant by "scrubbed", and that all non-sandbox play will be merged into the new "Adventure mode". Adventure mode will be have aspects of both science and career where you're assigned a goal - like a career mode contract - and are rewarded with unlocked technology and parts - or some other kind of progress - for completing that goal. Kind of like science mode but without the same point-buy system. The new goals (like contracts used to be) will not be as grindy or mundane as "place a satellite in a particular orbit", but will more progression-oriented, such as "perform a flyby of Mün" which may, for example, unlock some landing components and open up a goal to land on Mün, which may open up a goal to extract samples from Mün, etc. Some goals tie together with and enable colony growth (boom events) for a certain planet or SOI, and those colonies must grow to/past a certain threshold to unlock colony features such as construction and launch facilities or, say refinement of metallic hydrogen - this was actually a specific example cited in a developer vid. What I haven't seen anywhere is whether there will be any kind of in-game currency (though there were hints there may be from Nate a very long time ago), and whether or not we'll be doing any kind of other science grinding outside the goals. For example, if there is never a goal to run a seismic scan on Mün, I'm not sure if there will be any benefit to doing so, or if it will even be possible. Non-goal undertakings like that may unlock particular colony modules, but just guessing. I've been watching specifically for this, and haven't seen anything about it yet, but would appreciate a link if anyone has more info. The long and short of it is that it looks like the we have to throw out everything we know about tech tree progression, science mode and career mode, as they have been redesigned from the ground up to be more integrated and to encourage "progression" type play in the new adventure mode.

Such a welcoming community here for people posting what they hope is useful info.

This is a really good idea, but the problem is the new progression system is going to be carefully tested and "calibrated" against a particular star system to make sure gameplay is accessible and rewarding, esp for new players. A relatively easy solution (nothing is as easy as it sounds when making a game) would be to have two starter-friendly systems that new players can choose from. Maybe it would be the difference b/w "easy" - the old Kerbolar system for new players, and "challenging" - a new system, harder, for veterans. Even two new-game-ready systems would take a lot of extra work, and may not be feasible given time and resources. I do like your idea though, and it's reminiscent of Stellaris when choosing a random, habitable starting point that could be anywhere from forgiving to very punishing. Regardless, your idea of some kind of difficulty setting in Kerbal's new Adventure Mode sounds pretty interesting.

Semantics. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...

These are scrubbed. There is a new "adventure" mode where you unlock technology via milestones, and it will bear some similarities to the current science mode. EDIT: "adventure mode" is a working name, not final. Here's a quote from July: “[Colonies are] capable of producing colonists through a method that we will not describe, for everyone’s sake, after something that the player initiates called a ‘boom event’,” says lead designer Shana Markham. Throughout Kerbal’s new career mode, which the developers have nicknamed ‘adventure mode’, making discoveries and unlocking new technologies will trigger these boom events, which kick off various effects across your civilisation. In a colony’s nursery module, for example, that means making new colonists. “You know, discoveries make kerbals happy,” Markham says. Roshambo for who presses the launch button? (Image credit: Private Division) The goal of adventure mode is to provide a far more ambitious campaign for players to embark on, building ships powerful enough to leave the solar system. The structure will include specific missions, but creative director Nate Simpson says these will feel more “compelling” than some of the first game’s missions, which would direct you to fly to a specific latitude/ longitude and trigger a part on your ship. “Those felt grindy. We’re going out of our way to make the mission goals for adventure mode feel meaningful: real firsts that feel unique relative to every other goal in the game.” There's little snippets and peeks of the new mode strewn through interviews with various publications, but the gist of it is that career and science modes are essentially merged, based on what I'm reading. Nothing final has been released of course, so who knows what it will look like this time next year.

Don't forget the all-new Scott Kerman

So do we know that the base fuel in KSP 2 going to be methalox then, if you're making an RP-1 mod? There was always some controversy over whether the "LFO" fuel type in KSP 1 was kerolox or methalox, with all the engineering folks insisting it must be kerolox/RP-1 - further reinforced by Making History - and then the KSP 2 developers referring to the fuel type in KSP 1 as methalox in two separate interviews. There were several popular mods that added methane-burning engines and hydrogen-burning engines, both requiring actively-cooled storage, which (maybe apocryphally) really cemented the belief among the community that "LFO" was actually kerolox. Do we have any solid word on this yet?

Which, sadly, I think is a poor design decision and misses out on the opportunity to instill an all new sense of wonder for returning players. Reskinning what was there before feels like an appeasement to a very small, very hardcore base - though apparently very vocal, so they may be hedging against the "extremely vocal minority" who would cry foul and flood forums with negativity, impacting sales. They're pretty gutsy to even *touch* a sequel for a game with such a cult-like following, so I'm sure they're researching the audience very carefully before making these decisions. You note that you want GTA SA -> GTA IV, where I want GTA IV -> GTA V, meaning a similar underlying playstyle, but with all new content and expanded mechanics.

So... are we talking all new solar system layout with new dV maps, and things like a whole different atmosphere profile on Duna and Eve, new landmass layout on Laythe, etc? Have we even heard that level of detail yet on the redesign? Don't get me wrong - I am over the Mün excited about bases, functional launch-pads, new fuel types/engines, and interstellar travel (the first things I mod in for any playthrough), but the rehash of the solar system has been like a bucket of cold water. I can only hope you're right about the overhaul being far more fundamental than simply new textures, visuals and terrain maps. Landing on a prettier Duna in KSP2 with essentially the same launch, transfer and descent is going to be a serious buzzkill.

Are you talking about RP-1 the propellant (kerolox) and some parts that use it, or a realistic progression mod for RSS? (the links you provided are private).