Jognt

Outputlog.txt is in your user folder. Go to %appdata%, one folder up, then LocalLow, Squad, Kerbalspaceprogram. KSP.log should be in a folder in your game directory.

I may be wrong, but are you sure the patch goes through? Reason I ask is because of the HAS block after the NEEDS/AFTER block. To check, you can open your modulemanager.configcache file and do a search for "forceUseMeshes = true" or the module itself.

...... Wedgeception? Take your time, if my experience with BG is anything to go by I'm guessing most people are twiddling their thumbs until Squad's first bugfix patc. Oh by the way.. I'm new to Universal Storage II, but have I mentioned how insanely in love I am with them?

Do you have the old [x] Science! installed perhaps? If so, uninstall it, remove its folder from GameData, and then try to install [x] Science! Continued. Edit: You mentioned not having x science installed. Are you sure there's not a folder with that name remaining though?

Hnngg.. Okay I get your logic. I'll probably add a patch to nerf the Mk0 tank in a similar manner then. Though I still think it should at least be mentioned in the OP. That could link to this post of yours for clarification if people are wondering.

Okay.. So after wondering why some old crafts weren't capable of what they used to be capable of I figured it was due to the recent Spark mass nerf. It seemed like a big difference for that small mass change, but meh. Now I just read in another thread that ReStock+ does one little thing besides adding awesome parts: It nerfs the Oscar B into the ground to be "consistent with everything (it isn't)". It explains why I couldn't find a reason to use ANY Oscar tanks recently due to the SimpleFuelSwitch'd Mk0 tank being vastly superior. Could you guys make this either optional, or at least advertise it on the tin? IMO a single 'rebalance' has no place in a parts pack, regardless of whether it's a 'good' fix or not.

It made more sense back when Porkjets textures were also in MH as his parts overhaul is missing from KSP release history. (See what I did there?) Though I agree that Missing History essentially has “parts missing in making history” and “bits of porkjets overhaul” in its scope, which can feel weird.

Bummer. That change is mostly just a personal preference change, so don't feel like you 'need' to make it happen. If it's not possible at this moment, I'll just drop the idea or split them into two differing parts. Thanks a lot for checking!

lol. Thanks for letting me know. Saved me a lot of headscratching!

Clear and concise, thank you very much! Edit: KSPF looks like a goldmine, I'm going to have a lot of fun with that!

Okay, so which variable is used to reference that 'base variant'? baseVariant or baseDisplayName? Because the OP mentions that the baseDisplayName is set to Basic by default, yet does not mention the same for baseVariant. I think what it comes down to for me is: How do baseVariant and baseDisplayname differ from eachother? I assume there's a reason they are seperate variables. Also, I made a small personal patch that makes the 'foil' version of the MH Structural Plates lighter (10x) and tried to lower their torque/crash/impact values by a similar amount, but noticed what the OP confirmed that I can only touch cost/mass at this moment. is there any way to add new variable interactions to partvariants? (in this case crashTolerance, breakingForce, and breakingTorque)

What do you mean by 'nothing set'? Since he defined a variant called Stock, wouldn't the default state (the regular definition of the part) be 'set' for the basevariant? I thought you either had to define a baseVariant so there was an internal name for the 'regular PART' variant or that you had to define at least two VARIANTs to get switching to work. Or is the baseDisplayName already enough for the internals to work with?

I'm noticing LLG not defining a baseVariant by name nor does he have a variant defined for the baseDisplayName. Would that be a problem?

Thanks, but that was not the question, nor the intent. Though I admit my question was poorly formulated. I don't mind a challenge (the abundance of ore in stock bugged me in the past), and it sounds like RR does quite a bit more than just add a few resources. Let's say I removed 80% of the added resources, what does RR still offer? Meaning, what am I missing out on if I were to remove RR vs removing specific resources? For clarification: I do not mind the added resources. I do mind the immense bloat due to the integration with the stock scanners throwing so much information at the player. I'm not new to KSP and I'm not a basic player. I simply have a 'special' brain that would like to be able to handle 1 (one) new thing at a time. But it looks like I can 'remove RR' so I guess I'll think about that. Tip: If possible, hide the PAW percentages/names for items with a value of 0.00%/unknown. Ps. "If people have to say 'no offense intended', people usually mean 'don't get mad at this offensive thing I said'"

@dkavolis Would forcing FAR to use the meshes make it work with robotics? If so, how much would the performance impact be of using these more expensive calculations? Edit: How much is the performance impact regardless? (guessing there's a good reason it's not the default way)

Drat.. it works in the PART[] bit, in the NEEDS[] bit, but not in the HAS[] bit? I'd rather not address it by going for ModuleScienceExperiment because: 1. I don't want it to apply to stuff like Goo/Science Jr; 2. Some mods utilize their own science module while still utilizing stock experimentIDs (like DMagic and US2); The goal is a patch that is broad enough to cover every part (stock or modded) that calls for specific stock experimentIDs yet narrow enough to not hit all the science parts. Edit: The reason for using experimentID is so that I can target all experiments regardless of their module name that are of that type while ignoring other types. By type I mean 'numerical value'. Any experiment that boils down to 'what does the sensor say?' should be 100% transmittable. But stuff that requires a wise scientist to interpret what he sees should be partial. Edit2: I guess I could target the rerunnable=true key as it looks like it's only present on the exact experiments I defined, but I'm not sure about the odds of mods adding experiments that would add it for 'non simple' science.

This looks gorgeous! One question though: How is this set up with Realistic Resources? Reason I ask is because I try to avoid having to deal with so many resources that my head starts spinning.. (and some of the images in the RR thread made my head spin) Can I *plonk* this into GameData and build big rockets, or do I need to get a degree in chemistry first?

Hi there. I've been trying to get a small patch working for the past week, scouring the web/threads for information but since I can't figure it out: Is it normal that you cannot use a | in a HAS block? Or well, you can, but everything after it will be ignored without error. What I'm trying to do is target a subset of experimentID's and within that subset target the subset that has a xmitDataScalar key <1. My current (working) patch is this: But I just can't accept that I can't get it done without having to repeat the 'set key' bit. I've been trying the following, but that only targets those with temperatureScan. I've also tried placing all the experiment types in the first experimentID block but that also did not work. Even dropping the subset of the subset (xmitDataScalar <1) didn't make a difference.

Why not scale down the 2.5m variant? Afaik the battery should be available in both sizes by ReStock. Could reduce stretchmarks? Edit: Ignore me if I'm not making sense. I should be in bed...

lol. I was just about to come in and say "Sounds like you would love AtmosphereAutopilot". I still think you'll love it though

Found it, thanks. Might I suggest renaming the current scary sounding "Disable all Toolbars" to "Show on Toolbar(s)" that defaults to 'On'? It does show that the ScienceParamModifier/PluginData/ScienceParamSettings.cfg file is either bugged or shouldn't be there though, because adjusting the value in there does not do anything. In fact, it currently (on my install) has disableToolbar set to True even though I turned it back off a minute ago in the Difficulty menu. I restarted KSP to doublecheck, the Icon is showing like it should according to the difficulty menu, yet the config CFG itself is still saying it should be hidden. The CFG file modification time says it was modified the first time I turned the toolbar icon off, but it has not been modified after that time even though I turned it back on and off again. (with restarts in between) Ps. I have to ask.. that "A thing I made " link in your signature.. it leads to a "You do not have permission to view this content." page. What secrets does it hold?

Heya @_Zee How are the panic attacks treating you? Once they've lessened and you feel like you can handle diving in, here's some more stuff you can check out (found some problems with your mod compatibility patches): Missing History - It appears that your CFG changes the 2.5m engine plate cost before Missing History copies the part for its 1.25m engine plate and since stock engine plates all cost the same, @Snark didn't set a cost for it meaning it's kinda expensive in PBC. Universal Storage II - The xmitDataScalar key for USAccelGravWedge (Gravity&Seismic scan), USFluidSpectroWedge (atmosphereAnalysis), and USThermoBaroWedge (thermometer & barometer) aren't adjusted to 1 like all the other experiments you did. Feel free to use the MM patch two posts up unless I missed a valid reason not to do something like that. Then there's one suggestion (in bold, at the end): The Stock contract weighting system is built in such a way that declining a contract type only a few times and accepting another type only a few times will quickly result in getting that second type almost all the time. (I guess that's Squads advertisement roots showing) What this means is that it's very easy to turn the contract system into a monotonous heap of same-y-ness. I'm currently (or rather, was going to, before I found lots of bugs to report) testing what it's like to invert the weighting impact of contracts. So accepting a contract will make it ever so slightly less likely to get another one like that, and declining one will ever so slightly increase the chances of getting that type. I'm hoping that this will keep the contracts lively and varied by giving you what you love, but not so much that you couldn't get 'something different' even if you wanted to. To prevent the fun stuff from being swamped by meh stuff, I changed the minimum weight to 35, the default to 50, and the max to 65. I'm not entirely sure how the weighting works (though I'm assuming the min and max have to add up to 100 and that they're thus percentage chance based) but I'm hoping that this'll make it so stuff I haven't done in a while at the most has a almost double chance of appearing vs stuff I've done a lot. I haven't been able to play with it much due to the pile of bugs that is 1.7.1 but this has always been something that really bugged me about the stock contract system. If my train of thought is sound, would you consider applying it to PBC? Cheers, Jognt

So I just checked on a fresh 1.7.1.02539 +MH +BG installation in a fresh save. That little cog/settings icon really just is not there. https://imgur.com/212tQKc Editing the settings.cfg so that disableToolbar is set to true still does not remove the icon from the toolbar. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ou41twn9ebw00sc/output_logCBSE.zip?dl=0

Ah ok. Your previous reply made me think they were supposed to have them. I guess you meant all non-boattail engines should have shrouds then? If so, yup, haven't seen one without! Reading back I realize that my comment sounds like I'm not satisfied with ReStock. I am, and I thank you for all your effort. ===================================== Edit: Okay so there is this one teensy thing I would like checked : Every time I start KSP I get two minor warnings about ReStock (have them enabled for bug hunting atm) [Restock] No files found matching url Squad/Parts/Engine/vernorEngine/ (Filename: C:/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/generated/common/runtime/DebugBindings.gen.cpp Line: 51) [Restock] No files found matching url Squad/Parts/Utility/linearRCS/ (Filename: C:/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/generated/common/runtime/DebugBindings.gen.cpp Line: 51) Are you guys aware of it or want me to throw a log your way?

Ahh fair enough. If it's already been talked about then c'est la vie. My apologies.